“The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”
There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person.
As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science.
But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.
https://www.propublica.org/article/thousands-of-criminal-cas...
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reaso...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/21/opinion/the-dangers-of-dn...
A quote from The NY Times article:
“The first two suspects’ DNA was part of the mixture, and most labs correctly matched their DNA to the evidence. However, 74 labs wrongly said the sample included DNA evidence from the third suspect, an “innocent person” who should have been cleared of the hypothetical felony.”
There were 108 labs tested. 74 of 108 fingered an innocent person.
As long as DNA forensics processes are open source, we should be good, because the questionable component is the implementation, not the base science.
But, closed source DNA forensics is dangerous, I think.