Abstract
The controversy over the interpretation of DNA profile evidence in forensic identification can be attributed in part to confusion over the mode(s) of statistical inference appropriate to this setting. Although there has been substantial discussion in the literature of, for example, the role of population genetics issues, few authors have made explicit the inferential framework which underpins their arguments. This lack of clarity has led both to unnecessary debates over ill-posed or inappropriate questions and to the neglect of some issues which can have important consequences. We argue that the mode of statistical inference which seems to underlie the arguments of some authors, based on a hypothesis testing framework, is not appropriate for forensic identification. We propose instead a logically coherent framework in which, for example, the roles both of the population genetics issues and of the nonscientific evidence in a case are incorporated. Our analysis highlights several widely held misconceptions in the DNA profiling debate. For example, the profile frequency is not directly relevant to forensic inference. Further, very small match probabilities may in some settings be consistent with acquittal. Although DNA evidence is typically very strong, our analysis of the coherent approach highlights situations which can arise in practice where alternative methods for assessing DNA evidence may be misleading.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Balding D. J., Nichols R. A. A method for quantifying differentiation between populations at multi-allelic loci and its implications for investigating identity and paternity. Genetica. 1995;96(1-2):3–12. doi: 10.1007/BF01441146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Balding D. J., Nichols R. A. DNA profile match probability calculation: how to allow for population stratification, relatedness, database selection and single bands. Forensic Sci Int. 1994 Feb;64(2-3):125–140. doi: 10.1016/0379-0738(94)90222-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cavalli-Sforza L. L., Piazza A. Human genomic diversity in Europe: a summary of recent research and prospects for the future. Eur J Hum Genet. 1993;1(1):3–18. doi: 10.1159/000472383. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Collins A., Morton N. E. Likelihood ratios for DNA identification. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994 Jun 21;91(13):6007–6011. doi: 10.1073/pnas.91.13.6007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evett I. W. Evaluating DNA profiles in a case where the defence is "it was my brother". J Forensic Sci Soc. 1992 Jan-Mar;32(1):5–14. doi: 10.1016/s0015-7368(92)73041-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Evett I. W. What is the probability that this blood came from that person? A meaningful question? J Forensic Sci Soc. 1983 Jan;23(1):35–39. doi: 10.1016/s0015-7368(83)71540-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lander E. S., Budowle B. DNA fingerprinting dispute laid to rest. Nature. 1994 Oct 27;371(6500):735–738. doi: 10.1038/371735a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Li C. C., Chakravarti A. DNA profile similarity in a subdivided population. Hum Hered. 1994 Mar-Apr;44(2):100–109. doi: 10.1159/000154199. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morton N. E., Collins A., Balazs I. Kinship bioassay on hypervariable loci in blacks and Caucasians. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1993 Mar 1;90(5):1892–1896. doi: 10.1073/pnas.90.5.1892. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Morton N. E. Genetic structure of forensic populations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Apr 1;89(7):2556–2560. doi: 10.1073/pnas.89.7.2556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Weir B. S. The effects of inbreeding on forensic calculations. Annu Rev Genet. 1994;28:597–621. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ge.28.120194.003121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]