DNA transfer in forensic science: A review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod 3085, Australia;2. School of Molecular Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora 3086, Australia;3. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong 3220, Australia;4. UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ, UK;5. UCL Department of Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ, UK;6. Division Biological Traces, Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands;7. Biometrics Division, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod 3085, Australia;1. Forensic Science South Australia, 21 Divett Place, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia;2. School of Biological Sciences, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia;3. Faculty of Law, Criminal Justice and Public Administration, School of Criminal Justice, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland;4. Fondation pour la Formation Continue UNIL-EPFL, University of Lausanne, 1015 Lausanne-Dorigny, Switzerland;1. Division Biological Traces, Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044 2490 AA, The Hague, the Netherlands;2. Swedish National Forensic Centre, SE-581 94, Linköping, Sweden;3. Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology (IFM), Linköping University, SE-581 83, Linköping, Sweden;4. Forensic Science Ireland, Garda HQ, Phoenix Park, Dublin 8, Ireland;5. Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, P.O. Box 94248, 1090 GE, Amsterdam, the Netherlands;6. Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod, Vic, 3085, Australia;7. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Locked Bag 20000, Geelong, Vic, 3220, Australia;8. School of Molecular Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic, 3086, Australia;1. School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, 75 Pigdons Road, Waurn Ponds, Victoria 3216, Australia;2. Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod, Victoria 3085, Australia;3. School of Psychological Sciences, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria 3086, Australia;1. UCL Centre for the Forensic Sciences, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ, UK;2. UCL Department of Security and Crime Science, 35 Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9EZ, UK;3. UCL Division of Biosciences, Medical Sciences Building, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK;4. Office of the Chief Forensic Scientist, Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod, Melbourne, Victoria 3085, Australia;1. Victoria Police Forensic Services Department, 31 Forensic Drive, Macleod, Melbourne, Victoria 3085, Australia;2. Department of Genetics, School of Molecular Sciences, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria 3086, Australia |
| |
| Abstract: | ![]()
Understanding the variables impacting DNA transfer, persistence, prevalence and recovery (DNA-TPPR) has become increasingly relevant in investigations of criminal activities to provide opinion on how the DNA of a person of interest became present within the sample collected. This review considers our current knowledge regarding DNA-TPPR to assist casework investigations of criminal activities. There is a growing amount of information available on DNA-TPPR to inform the relative probabilities of the evidence given alternative scenarios relating to the presence or absence of DNA from a specific person in a collected sample of interest. This information should be used where relevant. However, far more research is still required to better understand the variables impacting DNA-TPPR and to generate more accurate probability estimates of generating particular types of profiles in more casework relevant situations. This review explores means of achieving this. It also notes the need for all those interacting with an item of interest to have an awareness of DNA transfer possibilities post criminal activity, to limit the risk of contamination or loss of DNA.Appropriately trained forensic practitioners are best placed to provide opinion and guidance on the interpretation of profiles at the activity level. However, those requested to provide expert opinion on DNA-related activity level issues are often insufficiently trained to do so. We advocate recognition of DNA activity associated expertise to be distinct from expertise associated with the identification of individuals. This is to be supported by dedicated training, competency testing, authorisation, and regular fit for purpose proficiency testing.The possibilities for experts to report on activity-related issues will increase as our knowledge increases through further research, access to relevant data is enhanced, and tools to assist interpretations are better exploited. Improvement opportunities will be achieved sooner, if more laboratories and agencies accept the need to invest in these aspects as well as the training of practitioners. |
| |
| Keywords: | DNA Transfer Persistence Prevalence Recovery Trace Activity level |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
