Validation of DNA LCN technology: Daubert?
Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 1:34 am
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 083217.ece
The above link provides information of recent difficulties that have arisen in Northern Ireland. A judge dismissed a case against an accused, charged with terrorism. The prosecution case rested largely on Low Copy Number ("LCN DNA") DNA - which is of course a relatively new method of DNA analysis. It has been used not least in the case in Australia of the murder of a Brit, Falconio, near Darwin.
The judge in Northern Ireland said, in para 62, that the system was being promoted by certain individuals, and had not been validated. It looks like the UK courts are edging towards a Daubert situation.
Are any of your readers aware of any occasions when LCN DNA has actually been relied on in US courts as a prosecution tool rather than an investigative one?
If a method of analysis is presented for the first time, how is it that the courts actually go about a Daubert type validation? Suppose I "invent" a new method of - for example - analysis or comparison, what standards are applied to validate it?
This is relevant to a particular case I am working on where two methods were used that it seems were never validated as being accepted science. There now seems to be real doubt over whether there is such an acceptable scientific method.
The above link provides information of recent difficulties that have arisen in Northern Ireland. A judge dismissed a case against an accused, charged with terrorism. The prosecution case rested largely on Low Copy Number ("LCN DNA") DNA - which is of course a relatively new method of DNA analysis. It has been used not least in the case in Australia of the murder of a Brit, Falconio, near Darwin.
The judge in Northern Ireland said, in para 62, that the system was being promoted by certain individuals, and had not been validated. It looks like the UK courts are edging towards a Daubert situation.
Are any of your readers aware of any occasions when LCN DNA has actually been relied on in US courts as a prosecution tool rather than an investigative one?
If a method of analysis is presented for the first time, how is it that the courts actually go about a Daubert type validation? Suppose I "invent" a new method of - for example - analysis or comparison, what standards are applied to validate it?
This is relevant to a particular case I am working on where two methods were used that it seems were never validated as being accepted science. There now seems to be real doubt over whether there is such an acceptable scientific method.