Resignation 'threatens drug ban'

Mephedrone is legal and widely available

Another senior government drugs adviser has quit, hours before ministers were expected to ban a new "legal high".

The resignation of Dr Polly Taylor from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has sparked speculation that the ban on mephedrone could be delayed.

Lib Dem science spokesman Dr Evan Harris said Home Secretary Alan Johnson's ban would have to wait until the council was "properly constituted".

16-03-10

ED Balls has condemned children's commissioner Dr Maggie Atkinson for using her years of professional experience in forming an opinion. Jo Frost knows more stuff because she's on the telly The schools secretary has called for an inquiry into how a qualified person with qualifications qualifying them to do their job could qualify their statements on matters they are qualified to comment on. Balls said: "Responsible governance is not about taking the advice of proper experts, it's about Jamie Oliver making a nice salad or asking that large television nanny to dictate childcare policy even though she does seem to limit herself to houses with steps." Julian Cook, professor of public policy at Reading University, said: "The public is often caught between highly trained experts who have studied a subject in depth and actually know what they are talking about and the bastard, son of a bitch whores we call politicians who spend their entire lives with the throbbing penis of the editor of the Daily Mail lodged firmly inside their filthy, lying mouths. "It's difficult to know who to trust."  Meanwhile Dr Atkinson's statement - that children are qualitatively different from adults and should perhaps be treated as such - was condemned by members of the public who did not understand most of the words in it. Nikki Hollis, a female thing from Carlisle, said: "This woman is basically saying that all children under 12 who are possessed by the devil should be given a loaded machine gun. "If I see her round here I'll set my evil dog on her."

Scientists in Israel have demonstrated that it is possible to fabricate DNA evidence, undermining the credibility of what has been considered the gold standard of proof in criminal cases.

Skip to next paragraph

RSS Feed

• Get Science News From The New York Times »

The scientists fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva. They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.

“You can just engineer a crime scene,” said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the paper, which has been published online by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. “Any biology undergraduate could perform this.”

Dr. Frumkin is a founder of Nucleix, a company based in Tel Aviv that has developed a test to distinguish real DNA samples from fake ones that it hopes to sell to forensics laboratories.

The planting of fabricated DNA evidence at a crime scene is only one implication of the findings. A potential invasion of personal privacy is another.

Using some of the same techniques, it may be possible to scavenge anyone’s DNA from a discarded drinking cup or cigarette butt and turn it into a saliva sample that could be submitted to a genetic testing company that measures ancestry or the risk of getting various diseases. Celebrities might have to fear “genetic paparazzi,” said Gail H. Javitt of the Genetics and Public Policy Center at Johns Hopkins University.

Tania Simoncelli, science adviser to the American Civil Liberties Union, said the findings were worrisome.

“DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints,” she said. “We’re creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology.”

John M. Butler, leader of the human identity testing project at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, said he was “impressed at how well they were able to fabricate the fake DNA profiles.” However, he added, “I think your average criminal wouldn’t be able to do something like that.”

The scientists fabricated DNA samples two ways. One required a real, if tiny, DNA sample, perhaps from a strand of hair or drinking cup. They amplified the tiny sample into a large quantity of DNA using a standard technique called whole genome amplification.

Of course, a drinking cup or piece of hair might itself be left at a crime scene to frame someone, but blood or saliva may be more believable.

The authors of the paper took blood from a woman and centrifuged it to remove the white cells, which contain DNA. To the remaining red cells they added DNA that had been amplified from a man’s hair.

Since red cells do not contain DNA, all of the genetic material in the blood sample was from the man. The authors sent it to a leading American forensics laboratory, which analyzed it as if it were a normal sample of a man’s blood.

The other technique relied on DNA profiles, stored in law enforcement databases as a series of numbers and letters corresponding to variations at 13 spots in a person’s genome.

From a pooled sample of many people’s DNA, the scientists cloned tiny DNA snippets representing the common variants at each spot, creating a library of such snippets. To prepare a DNA sample matching any profile, they just mixed the proper snippets together. They said that a library of 425 different DNA snippets would be enough to cover every conceivable profile.

Nucleix’s test to tell if a sample has been fabricated relies on the fact that amplified DNA — which would be used in either deception — is not methylated, meaning it lacks certain molecules that are attached to the DNA at specific points, usually to inactivate genes.

Sign in to Recommend Next Article in Science (4 of 24) » A version of this article appeared in print on August 18, 2009, on page D3 of the New York edition.