Homework Help

[SoxFan1]

Pro: Yes, DNA fingerprinting should be used in forensic medicine.

1) DNA-based identification is more reliable than other forms of identification.

2) Except in the case of identical twins, it is almost impossible for two people to share the same DNA.

 

Con: No, DNA fingerprinting should not be used in forensic medicine.

1) There are inherent errors in the techniques used to determine a DNA fingerprint.

2) A lack on agreement on “match criteria” is often evident when interpreting DNA typing results.

 

I have to pick one of each and express why. Primary sources are needed. I have no idea where to start. Where can I go for primary sources?

[3E8]

[ThunderBolt]

I'm assuming this is a college paper, if so, doesn't your library have an online research database? You can probably narrow it down from there.

[Texsox]

I'm assuming this is a college paper, if so, doesn't your library have an online research database? You can probably narrow it down from there.

 

The librarian is your friend. Find the reference section, fall at their feet, and they will open worlds to you that you never knew existed. Writing papers becomes easy with their help.

 

And pick the side where the find the best resources, your opinion just does not matter.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Hell, DNA evidence should be about the only forensic evidence utilized. Ballistics, traditional fingerprinting, toxicological reverse-engineering, splatter pattern analysis are all hogwash compared with the certainty that DNA evidence can provide.

 

Sample integrity and investigator accreditation/credibility remain issues, of course, but if intact sample evidence is retrieved from a crime scene, DNA testing is going to be as good as it gets for determining the originator of that sample.