Is DNA Profiling Racist?

[Borat]

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

watch this movie:

 

[Ravi]

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing

say it ain't so hahaha

but, but, but there is only one race ? human race ? hahaha

but, but, but race is not genetic ?

how can DNA testing identify a "social construct" ?

What he claimed isn't true. He's probably referring to this...

DNA trail in LA serial killer case detailed - Yahoo! News

 

[JBeukema]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son. Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

You're an idiot. Eye colour has nothing to do with anything. You clearly know jack shit about DNA sequencing and what parts of the genome are useful for identification.

 

[JBeukema]

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

watch this movie:

While not a bad movie (see my avatar), Gattaca is unrealistic and grossly exaggerates heritability of many aspects of potential. It tries to show that there is more than DNA when dealing with the main protagonist, but by treating him as such an exception, they misrepresent that matter.

 

[JBeukema]

Single-Nucleotide polymorphisms...

 

[MizMolly]

It is certainly not racist to use DNA to catch criminals. There wouldn't be a discussion about a white man's DNA being used to catch a criminal. Race isn't the issue here, if this method works to catch a criminal I am all for it.

 

[IanC]

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing

say it ain't so hahaha

but, but, but there is only one race ? human race ? hahaha

but, but, but race is not genetic ?

how can DNA testing identify a "social construct" ?

What he claimed isn't true. He's probably referring to this...

DNA trail in LA serial killer case detailed - Yahoo! News

Why do you keep saying my stuff isn't true when I always prove you wrong?

Here is an excerpt from a Wired article from several years back--


"In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.

"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"

"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody. "


Still think my claims are untrue Ravi?

 

[IanC]

Single-Nucleotide polymorphisms...

What makes you think I don't know anything about genetics and the methods for identifying racial origin? What most people don't know is that any set of DNA sequences, by any type of markers can be used to do the job, it just may take more of them. Comercial tests usually use areas of junk DNA because they can be more indicative and fewer are needed but then opponents bitch because those areas don't code for anything in particular.

If there is something specific that I commented on, that you don't like or disagree with, just point it out and I will clarify it for you.

 

[IanC]

It's fair if it works. When it comes to crime you must forget about race.

After all justice is supposed to be blind.

I hope you're not gonna suggest that we do what was done by an activist judge in AZ and tell law enforcement officials to ignore the obvious just to avoid any possible discriminatory practices.

I think that getting every possible bit of evidence out of the actual DNA evidence is fair game. Especially with white people this could be significant, eg nordic, blue eyes, brown hair.

But using a relative's prior criminality to identify a suspect seems to cross a privacy boundary to me.

You're an idiot. Eye colour has nothing to do with anything. You clearly know jack shit about DNA sequencing and what parts of the genome are useful for identification.

It seems obvious that for whatever reasons you dislike me and my ideas and opinions. Unfortunately for you, most of my comments are backed up by logic and evidence.

DNAPrint Announces the release of RETINOME™ for the Forensic Market: Eye Color Prediction from Crime Scene DNA

DNAPrint genomics, Inc. announced today that it has finished validating an ultra-high throughput version of its proprietary RETINOME™ genetic test for predicting human (eye) iris color from DNA. The new test has been added to the Company’s proprietary DNAWitness™ 2.5 physical profiling package of genome tests sold to forensics and security investigators.


The completion of the RETINOME™ project and the addition of the new RETINOME™ product to the Company’s DNAWitness™ package of genome tests constitute a dramatic advance in the newly developing science of molecular forensics profiling, where the goal is to paint a physical profile from crime scene DNA.


RETINOME™ provides an accurate inference of iris (eye) color from the measurement of proprietary single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) distributed throughout the human genome. The genetic basis of this trait has vexed geneticists for decades. As detailed in an article published in a recent ‘Trends in Genetics’ review article, RETINOME™ was developed from a genome screen of tens of thousands of genome SNPs in thousands of European subjects. A necessary but not sufficient component of the RETINOME™ technology was first published by DNAPrint™ scientists last spring in the peer-reviewed journal, ‘Genetics’. Since the discovery of the genetic keys for predicting iris color from DNA 3 years ago, the Company has been augmenting, evaluating and optimizing the performance of its innovative RETINOME™ genome test. The most recent blind validation test for 65 individuals of predominant (>80%) European ancestry, between the ages of 10 and 60 years of age showed greater than 97% accuracy. A “blind” test is one in which a model is used to classify a trait for samples that were not used to develop the model in any way, and provides an indication of the generality of the model for field application. DNAPrint’s computer scientists developed innovative and proprietary software that proved to be the key to unlocking the door to this difficult trait.

 

[Ravi]

say it ain't so hahaha

but, but, but there is only one race ? human race ? hahaha

but, but, but race is not genetic ?

how can DNA testing identify a "social construct" ?

What he claimed isn't true. He's probably referring to this...

DNA trail in LA serial killer case detailed - Yahoo! News

Why do you keep saying my stuff isn't true when I always prove you wrong?

Here is an excerpt from a Wired article from several years back--


"In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.

"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"

"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody. "


Still think my claims are untrue Ravi?

Lucky guess on his part. He's since gone out of business...I know, I know, he has a pre-planned excuse.

 

[Ravi]

DNAPrint Genomics (OTCBB: DNAG
) was a genetics company with a wide range of products related to genetic profiling. The company ceased operations in February 2009.

 

[editec]

Last month a serial killer was caught because his DNA partially matched a close relative, in this case his son.

That's not profiling...that's investigating.

Is it fair to use a policing method that definitely will have a disparate impact on blacks? eg. there are proportionately more DNA fingerprints on file for blacks than for other groups, therefore it is likely that there will be proportionally more blacks identified by familial searches.

AGain, that's not profiling, that's investigating.

Several years ago a serial killer was racially identified as predominantly black by DNA testing, which changed the direction of the search from a white man, and the perp was caught. Even though the racial profiling was a success the (black) police chief said that he wished the technology could be put back in the bottle.

NOT profiling

Is it fair to use DNA testing for ever increasing identification purposes or is it an invasion of privacy? It is a tough call.

DNA can be a useful tool to solve crimes.

It can also be a terrible invasion of privacy.

In fact there's no way it won't be used for both good and bad purposes.

This is the nature of the way mankind uses his scientific and techology advances.

 

[IanC]

What he claimed isn't true. He's probably referring to this...

DNA trail in LA serial killer case detailed - Yahoo! News

Why do you keep saying my stuff isn't true when I always prove you wrong?

Here is an excerpt from a Wired article from several years back--


"In early March, 2003, investigators turned to Tony Frudakis, a molecular biologist who said he could determine the killer's race by analyzing his DNA. They were unsure about the science, so, before giving him the go-ahead, the task force sent Frudakis DNA swabs taken from 20 people whose race they knew and asked him to determine their races through blind testing. He nailed every single one.

Still, when they gathered in the Baton Rouge police department for a conference call with Frudakis in mid-March, they were not prepared to hear or accept his conclusions about the killer.

"Your guy has substantial African ancestry," said Frudakis. "He could be Afro-Caribbean or African American but there is no chance that this is a Caucasian. No chance at all."

There was a prolonged, stunned silence, followed by a flurry of questions looking for doubt but Frudakis had none. Would he bet his life on this, they wanted to know? Absolutely. In fact, he was certain that the Baton Rouge serial killer was 85 percent Sub-Saharan African and 15 percent native American.

"This means we're going to turn our investigation in an entirely different direction," Frudakis recalls someone saying. "Are you comfortable with that?"

"Yes. I recommend you do that," he said. And now, rather than later since, in the time it took Frudakis to analyze the sample, the killer had claimed his fifth victim. The task force followed Frudakis' advice and, two months later, the killer was in custody. "


Still think my claims are untrue Ravi?

Lucky guess on his part. He's since gone out of business...I know, I know, he has a pre-planned excuse.

21 correct out of 21 is lucky guesses

 

[Ravi]

Educate yourself Ian:

Can DNA Tell What "Race" You Are? - a knol by Frank W Sweet

A bit simplistic...but you can probably understand what he's saying.

This one is just amusing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/science/12watson.html

What does your DNA tell you about your ancestry, Ian?

 

[editec]

What DNA studies seem to be showing us is that the whole theory of RACE is mostly a load of silly ethnocentric blather.

But people can understand silly blather and if that blather gives them a reason to think themselves superior, most of them are going to buy into it regardless of what science tells them.

 

[IanC]

Educate yourself Ian:

Can DNA Tell What "Race" You Are? - a knol by Frank W Sweet

A bit simplistic...but you can probably understand what he's saying.

This one is just amusing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/12/science/12watson.html

What does your DNA tell you about your ancestry, Ian?

Your first link says that genetics only indicates continental origin. What do you think race is? Hahaha. The other section says maternal and paternal specific DNA only indicates lineage. Who ever said it was used to identify continental cluster origin?

The link about Watson is hilarious! At first I was confused because I remembered an article saying that he had asian genes! So one story has him with black genes but no asian ones, and the other has asian genes but no black ones. Seems a little suspicious that the weird interpretations showed up after the brouhaha. The easy explanation is that they went over his profile with a fine tooth comb and gave an odd claim to any outliers. Remember Lewontin? He claimed there was no alleles specific to one race therefor there was races. That is true but most alleles have different frequencies, and are found in certain combinations, depending on race. A handfull of unusual allele variants (for a certain race) doesn't mean racial mixture unless they fall into specific combinations. Google Lewontin's Fallacy for more information.

As to my DNA? Pony up the cash for the test and I'll let you see the results! Hahaha

 

[JBeukema]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4&feature=PlayList&p=EE2EBF8303BD5DB4&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (Part 1 of 13)[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YarKXlGs-eQ&feature=PlayList&p=49E704950E504E1A&index=0&playnext=1]YouTube - 1of11-The Human Family Tree[/ame]

 

[Middleman]

I think this is an interesting legal question and I see no reason to bash the OP. It seems that people automatically have knee jerk reactions to any thread that brings up a racially connected question. All he did was ask a question and solicit opinions, and people start making assumptions.

 

[IanC]

What DNA studies seem to be showing us is that the whole theory of RACE is mostly a load of silly ethnocentric blather.

But people can understand silly blather and if that blather gives them a reason to think themselves superior, most of them are going to buy into it regardless of what science tells them.

A Stanford study on hypertention had a piggyback study that matched the self identified race of over 3000 persons with only 6 wrong. Personally I wonder whether the test or the self identification was wrong in those six cases.

What does someone feeling superior have to do with science (except in global warming, of course)? We can identify race by physical characteristics or genetics. How can you deny the existence of race?

 

[Ravi]

Your first link says that genetics only indicates continental origin. What do you think race is? Hahaha.

Continental origin is race?