[MUSIC] Hello, and welcome back. Today, I'm going to discuss with you DNA evidence, such as DNA fingerprinting, paternity test. Using your DNA fingerprint profile in court, and how this technology's impacting laws. Since its introduction in 1986, DNA fingerprinting has become a standard part of law enforcement. DNA evidence has been used in many cases, and can help establish innocence or guilt. DNA fingerprinting was used to identify the victims of the World Trade Center attack on September 11. And DNA profiles are also used for evolutionary research, and the technique is used to study ancient fragments of DNA. We can even use your DNA profile to determine if you carry a gene for a specific disease, such as Huntington's or cystic fibrosis. We can use a process called DNA electrophoresis, to generate a DNA fingerprint. This DNA technology is used in courts of law where DNA fingerprint can help solve crimes by matching it, a person with evidence. The DNA fingerprint can be used to exonerate people who are in prison, and may have been wrongfully con, convicted. Project Innocence, a nonprofit organization, has helped free over 300 people. Many times using DNA evidence. The problem with having this information available to us, is now that juries crave more forensic DNA evidence. And much of the time, it's simply not available. Criminals are now smarter, and know not to leave DNA evidence behind. Or they've learned to plant evidence to throw off the criminal investigation. A great example of this is a doctor in Canada, who was accused of sedating and raping one of his female patients. DNA evidence revealed that the doctor was innocent since the DNA's, the DNA isolated from the doctor did not match the DNA from the rape. But the woman insisted her doctor had raped her. Blood was taken from the doctors arm multiple times, and DNA testing showed every time that that blood did not match the sperm DNA from the rape victim. The doctor had actually successfully fooled DNA experts and police by inserting a tube in his arm, where the blood had been taken. That blood was taken from another one of the doctors' male patients. The doctor was finally caught, when his stepdaughter accused him of rape. The man the doctor had originally taken the blood from had died. So fresh blood was not available for the doctor to use. This time, the police also, and forensic scientist, also took DNA from multiple locations of the doctor, including his cheek. And this time, the cheek cells matched the sperm evidence. In the past, a criminal needed to leave behind a lot of DNA evidence at a crime scene. But with new DNA technology, only the tiniest amount of DNA needs to be at a crime scene. And that's going to lead to a technique called PCR. PCR, Polymerase Chain Reaction, is used to clone a small amount of DNA quickly, and produces enough DNA copies for lab analysis. Only specific regions or loci, are amplified using this technique. And the more loci that are examined, the more accurate this test can be. The amplified DNA sequences all have unique lin, lengths and unique sequences, that correspond to a specific person. And there are several ways to examine the DNA. One is to run the DNA fragments through a gel electropheresis. And this creates a specific banding pattern on the gel that's going to be unique to each person. That's called DNA fingerprint. Each person will have a unique DNA fingerprint or a unique banding pattern except for identical twins. Identical twins have identical DNA fingerprints. But interestingly, they don't have identical fingerprints. Your fingerprint is determined while you're developing in uterus. So identical twins have similar, but still unique fingerprints. The same DNA fingerprinting technology can be used to determine paternity. As you remember from one of our first talks, you receive half of your DNA from your mother and the other half from your father. You can use DNA fingerprinting technology to examine your DNA fingerprint, and compare that to your mother's. And you'll see that some of the bands match your mother. And the bands that didn't come from your mother, they must have come from another source. And where could that DNA source be? Well you know, that source is your father. We also want to consider the law when discussing biotechnology. We discuss that people can no longer patent naturally occurring genes in the United States. That just changed. In 2012 a person could patent a gene. Laws are constantly evolving to keep up with biotechnology. As well as how information can be used in court. We know that the expression of certain genes can affect mood, behavior, and there are genes implicated in violence and alcoholism. With that said, do we control our fate? I ask, because some people have used their genes as a defense in court. Using your diff, genes as a defense in court has been done, and it's been done successfully. In 1994, a woman won an appeal in a case for shooting and killing her son. The basis of her appeal, was that she had the gene for Huntington's disease. Whether or not she was showing the symptoms of Huntington's disease, Huntington's disease, which would affect her mental abilities, is actually still in question. But, she won an acquittal, and was released. So, should genes be a defense? If someone is more likely to be predisposed to alcoholism due to his or her genes and upbringing, should that person be given a lighter sentence for drunk driving? Than say, a person who doesn't have the same genetic risk factors? Is it fair to consider your genes as a mitigating circumstance for a reduced sentence for crime? Is it reasonable to claim a bad gene as a defense? What if the person's released and commits the same crime again? Do they get a lighter sentence again? Remember that warrior gene we talked about? A man named that, Bradley Waldroup was on trial for first degree murder. He murdered his wife's friend and attempted to murder his wife. In his defense, the warrior gene. Well the problem with his defense is, that a lot of Europeans have the same warrior gene, yet the crime of murder in European populations is relatively low. So it can't simply be having this gene, made him commit the crime. Even in European men who have this gene and abusive childhoods, violent crimes is, in Europe is still lower than the United States. So is the warrior gene a valid defense, now that you have that extra information? Well, some jurors thought so. And Bradley actually received a lighter sentence, because of his genetic predisposition. You can see, this is a very slippery slope. Knowledge is power, they say. What would you do if you had the knowledge of your genome? What I mean is, what would you do if you knew every disease you're predisposed to? And which ones you'd get later in life? What would you do with that information? Would yo-, this change how you live every day? Also, would, how would you share this knowledge with? What, would you share it with your doctors? Your loved ones? Health insurance? Well, should your health insurance be allowed to charge you a different premium if you're a carrier for certain genes? Since you know you're predisposed to certain conditions? Would you eat better, or exercise more if you knew you had a genetic predisposition for heart disease or cancer? But really, shouldn't you do that anyways, regardless of what genes you have? So, what would you do if you found out, you had the Huntington's allele? And that would lead to Huntington's disease? This is an autosomal dominant allele. That means you just need one copy to be afflicted. And if one of your parents had this disease, you have a 50% chance of inheriting this disease allele. There's no cure. And the symptoms begin to manifest themselves as you age. And depending on the version of the allele you have, it's subtle, and can start as early as in your 30s. A lot of people may have all ready had children by the time they're diagnosed with this. Especially if you have no family history. Well, ultimately, this del, disease can lead to severe altered behavior, psychosis, and death. What would you do knowing this is your fate, and there's nothing you could actually do about it? There's no treatment, there's no cure for Huntington's disease. Say you've already had children, and were diagnosed with this disease. Remember, there's a 50% chance that your children will have this allele. What would you do? Do your children, do you tell your children you have it, and they could have it too? Will you also tell them there's no cure, and there's not much they can really do? Some parents do tell their children, so they can live life to the fullest. Other parents don't say anything, and they're not required to. They say nothing, because they don't want their children living in fear, of the day that the symptoms manifest themselves. [MUSIC]
