BOCA RATON, Fla., Feb. 27, 2012 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- DNA Brands, Inc. (DNAX.OB), holders of the prestigious "best-tasting energy drink award" at the 2010 World Beverage Competition and producers of DNA Energy Drinks(R) and DNA Meat Snacks sold at major retailers including Walgreens, Circle-K and Race Trac, today announced it has renewed its marketing arrangement with radio talk-show personality Bubba The Love Sponge.

"We are excited knowing that we once again will be working with Bubba to promote the DNA brand. Bubba The Love Sponge's syndicated radio show reaches hundreds of thousands of people, most of which is our core demographic. As we continue to grow our mid-west and California markets it is reassuring to know that Bubba will be there getting the DNA message out to our target market and supporting our other marketing initiatives," said Geoff Armstrong VP Marketing for DNA Brands Inc. Armstrong concluded, "We are also happy to announce that will continue to produce the special "Bubba Army" Cranrazberry co-op can in which a portion of sales are donated to the BTLS Foundation."

"We are very pleased to have renewed our agreement with DNA Brands. DNA has been a great sponsor of our show, and a big supporter of the Bubba Army. We like that these guys are here in our own backyard building their brand, these guys provide the kind of support we look for in our sponsors....we are pleased to help DNA get their name out in front of our massive listening audience and help DNA to promote their brand. We like the product. Out team drinks DNA every day to get us through our demanding days!"

The Bubba The Love Sponge radio show reaches hundreds of thousands of listeners daily in the United States and Canada through their nationally syndicated program, Radio IO and social media. Bubba Clem is also an avid car racer in the state of Florida and created the BTLS foundation, which supports worthy causes and its victims including fallen officer's families.

About DNA Brands, Inc.

DNA BRANDS, make DNA Energy Drink(R), the award-winning, best-tasting energy drink at the 2010 World Beverage Competition, and DNA Beef Jerky(TM) and DNA Shred Stix(TM). DNA Energy Drink(R) is a proprietary blend of quality ingredients in four flavors Citrus, Lemon Lime, Sugar Free Citrus and CRANRAZBERRY. DNA is a proud sponsor of many action sport teams consisting of top athletes from Motorcross, Surf, Wakeboard and Skateboard has received tremendous TV and media coverage.

Independent retailers throughout the state sell the DNA Brand products as well as national retailers including Walgreens, CVS, Race Trac and Circle K.

True to its actions sports roots, DNA BRANDS, INC., has earned national recognition through its sponsorship of the DNA Energy Drink/Jeff Ward Racing team where it competes on a world-class level in Supercross and Motocross, reaching millions of fans. DNA Energy Drink(R) can also be found in other action sports such as Surfing, BMX, Wakeboarding and Skateboarding and its athletes are recognized stars in their own right.

For more information about DNA Energy Drink, its athletes and sponsorships, please visit http://www.dnabrandsusa.com

The DNA Beverage Corp. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=7258

Safe Harbor Forward-Looking Statements

To the extent that statements in this press release are not strictly historical, including statements as to revenue projections, business strategy, outlook, objectives, future milestones, plans, intentions, goals, future financial conditions, future collaboration agreements, the success of the Company's development, events conditioned on stockholder or other approval, or otherwise as to future events, such statements are forward-looking, and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements contained in this release are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the statements made.

Read more from the original source:
DNA Brands Signs New Marketing Agreement With Radio Talk Show Personality "Bubba The Love Sponge"

28 February 2012 Last updated at 11:22 ET

A senior detective said he is more optimistic than ever that Thai police will catch the killer of a backpacker from Powys.

Kirsty Jones, 23, from Tredomen, near Brecon, was raped and strangled at a guesthouse in Chiang Mai in 2000.

The head of CID at Dyfed-Powys Police said investigations are now focused on a DNA profile recovered from the scene.

Thai Police are carrying out a programme of testing possible suspects for a match.

Det Ch Supt Steve Wilkins and Ch Insp Andy John have returned from a meeting with Thai authorities to discuss the long-running investigation.

Det Ch Supt Wilkins, head of CID, said Thai Police agreed with him that the DNA evidence should be the focus of the inquiry.

"One of the lines of inquiry that we discussed with the Thais was the testing of individuals who were repeat offenders in the area of where the murder took place," he said.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

I find it difficult to believe that the person has not come to the notice of the police before or certainly won't come to their notice in the future”

End Quote Det Ch Supt Steve Wilkins Dyfed-Powys Police

"Certainly that would be a line I would be looking to take if the murder took place in Wales."

He said under Thai law police had to have evidence to support the taking of a DNA sample which ruled out mass testing.

But he said he believed it was likely the DNA retrieved belonged to the killer or someone who assisted them.

He said: "I find it difficult to believe that the person has not come to the notice of the police before or certainly won't come to their notice in the future."

He said there was a renewed focus on the investigation in Thailand and he was very encouraged by discussions he had with the Thai department of special investigations.

"The will and the skills are there to do it," he added.

Thai authorities have offered to provide bi-monthly updates on how the investigation is proceeding and officers from Dyfed-Powys will fly to Thailand again in six months time.

Substantial reward

Det Ch Supt Wilkins said Dyfed-Powys had offered help in relation to a new appeal in the Thai media.

The force is exploring the possibility and legality of offering a substantial reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the offender.

Det Ch Supt Wilkins said it had proved successful in cold case reviews in Wales.

He added: "On our return we spoke with Sue Jones, Kirsty's mother who is pleased with the outcome of our discussions."

Farmer's daughter Ms Jones, a Liverpool University graduate, was found dead in a room at the Aree guest house in Chiang Mai in northern Thailand, 435 miles (700km) north of the country's capital Bangkok.

She was three months into a two-year around-the-world trip.

Her mother Sue Jones has pledged never to give up the fight to see her daughter's murderer caught.

Go here to see the original:
DNA focus for Thai murder police

Mini sequencer: The MinION from Oxford Nanopore plugs into a computer like a USB memory stick. The single-use sequencer will be on the market for under $900 sometime this year.
Oxford Nanopore

Why a Portable DNA Device Could Yield Better Data

Oxford Nanopore's approach reads longer stretches of DNA at once—and could more accurately spot structural variations linked to certain diseases.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 By Katherine Bourzac

Oxford Nanopore Technologies announced recently that it has two products capable of sequencing DNA by reading the chemical bases in a DNA molecule directly, as it is threaded through a nanoscopic hole in a protein. The U.K.-based company will begin selling a simple, disposable, portable $900 DNA-reading device, and a more comprehensive desktop model, by the end of the year.

If Oxford Nanopore's technology can do what the company claims, it will be "a total game-changer," says Jeffery Schloss, director for technology development at the National Human Genome Research Institute, part of the National Institutes of Health.

The technology relies on the fact that each DNA base has a slightly different electrical charge. Electrodes measure the change in electrical potential as DNA molecules are fed through protein nanopores; an electrical gradient drives the DNA through the pore, while molecular "controllers" attached to the molecules mechanically slow them down so that their electrical signals may be recorded.

This approach has two important advantages.

First, the system is compact and doesn't require a supply of expensive reagents. That means sequencing can come out of the lab, making it useful for personalized medicine or for use in resource-poor clinics. Indeed, the disposable sequencer the company is about to introduce is the size of a USB memory stick.

Second, the technology reads much longer stretches of DNA than other rapid sequencing approaches, which means it's better at spotting important "structural variants" related to disease. These variants occur when a whole segment of chromosome is moved, inverted, duplicated, or otherwise changed. When DNA is chopped into shorter stretches to be sequenced and then put back together on a computer, it is easier to miss, or misinterpret, such variants.

The best way to identify variants is still to use conventional sequencing methods, which are highly accurate but also expensive and slow. Rapid sequencers released by Life Technologies and Pacific Biosciences in recent years are fast and inexpensive, but they do a poorer job of spotting structural variants.

Better structural information could be useful for personalized medicine. Among other things, it could identify cases of translocation, a chromosomal abnormality in which large stretches of DNA break away from the chromosome where they belong and reattach someplace else. These mutations can cause cancer and other diseases.

The company's portable nanopore sequencers could be used in the field—for example, to quickly identify or sequence a new strain of bacteria. A spokesperson for Oxford Nanopore says the portable sequencers might be used to monitor wound care in hospitals or to aid in on-site monitoring of agricultural sites for food safety.

At a research conference last week in Marco Island, Florida, Oxford Nanopore reported continuously sequencing 100,000-base stretches of DNA in the lab—sequences about 10 to 100 times longer than any other company has read. Pacific Biosciences' newest commercial machines are capable of sequencing up to 3,000 bases at once, says the company's director of product management, Edwin Hauw.

But nanopore sequencing could go way beyond this. In theory, the only limit on the length the system can sequence is researchers' ability to prepare the inherently fragile samples. Human chromosomes encompass a million or so DNA bases.

The Oxford Nanopore system so far has a raw error rate of 4 percent. But the company says this can be improved by sequencing the same strand of DNA multiple times, threading it back and forth through the pore.

Go here to read the rest:
Why a Portable DNA Device Could Yield Better Data

New DNA evidence discovered on one of the Wanda Beach murder victims is at least five years away from being useful, police say.

A weak DNA profile of an unknown male has recently been identified from a pair of jeans worn by one of the victims, the Acting Assistant Commissioner of the forensic services group, Mark Sweeney, told reporters in Sydney on Monday.

But new technology needs to be developed before a conclusive match can be made, he said.

Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock, both aged 15, were found beaten and stabbed to death at the beach in January 1965.

'We've been very fortunate that in recent years we've had huge advances in technology, but at this stage we can't do much with that profile,' Mr Sweeney said.

'The sample itself is not going to take the matter any further forward in 2012.

'It will take a significant breakthrough (in technology) ... which I believe will occur, that will allow us then to revisit the sample.'

Mr Sweeney estimated the new technology was 'five years plus' away from being developed.

'There is no expectation at this point in time that we have an imminent break but clearly this is an exciting time for law enforcement, (an) exciting time for forensic science,' he said.

The case was 'wedded to the psyche of everyone', including NSW police, he said.

'There have always been a number of suspects linked to the investigation.

'It is important to give confidence to the family members, give confidence to the community generally, that NSW police continues to look at unsolved crime, in particular unsolved homicides.'

Excerpt from:
DNA evidence found on Wanda Beach victim

New DNA evidence discovered on one of the Wanda Beach murder victims is at least five years away from being useful, police say.

A weak DNA profile of an unknown male has recently been identified from a pair of jeans worn by one of the victims, the Acting Assistant Commissioner of the forensic services group, Mark Sweeney, told reporters in Sydney on Monday.

But new technology needs to be developed before a conclusive match can be made, he said.

Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock, both aged 15, were found beaten and stabbed to death at the beach in January 1965.

'We've been very fortunate that in recent years we've had huge advances in technology, but at this stage we can't do much with that profile,' Mr Sweeney said.

'The sample itself is not going to take the matter any further forward in 2012.

'It will take a significant breakthrough (in technology) ... which I believe will occur, that will allow us then to revisit the sample.'

Mr Sweeney estimated the new technology was 'five years plus' away from being developed.

'There is no expectation at this point in time that we have an imminent break but clearly this is an exciting time for law enforcement, (an) exciting time for forensic science,' he said.

The case was 'wedded to the psyche of everyone', including NSW police, he said.

'There have always been a number of suspects linked to the investigation.

'It is important to give confidence to the family members, give confidence to the community generally, that NSW police continues to look at unsolved crime, in particular unsolved homicides.'

Excerpt from:
DNA evidence found on beach victim

Police scour Wanda Beach following the murders, 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Marianne Schmidt in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Christine Sharrock at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Cold Case: Christine Sharrock and Marianne Schmidt. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Christine Sharrock in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Marianne Schmidt at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Two teenagers murdered at Wanda Beach 47 years ago Blood spot found on cold-case evidence tested  Faint DNA profile of male discovered, further testing needed

A BLOOD spot may hold vital DNA evidence that could solve one of Sydney's most enduring mysteries.

The blood, taken from the scene of the Wanda Beach murders 47 years ago, belongs to an unknown male and was gleaned from crime scene boxes after cold case detectives revisited the case.

Now police hope new testing methods will give them a fuller profile and provide a breakthrough in the case.

Teenagers Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock were found stabbed and bashed to death in the sand dunes at Wanda beach, in Sydney's south, in January 1965. Despite a number of investigations over the years no one has ever been arrested for the murders of the two 15-year-olds from Ryde.

The Cold Case Squad was told to reinvestigate the case by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione in 2007.

The Cold Case Justice program located clothing belonging to the Wanda Beach victims, had crime scene negatives reprinted and reviewed all the evidence.

A button and zipper were removed from one of the victim's shorts and a sub sample sent to New Zealand for DNA testing but the profile which came back belonged to one of the victims.

Surprised that DNA profiles could still be obtained from a sample so many years old, officers decided to test a blood mark on the shorts that could be a knife wipe mark. A weak male profile was found.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Sweeney, head of the forensic group, said: "We are optimistic that when enhanced with new techniques the DNA could be used against a number of known suspects. What it shows is DNA can be successfully extracted nearly 50 years later and science used to investigate new and old crimes."

Police are being cautious and at the moment it is believed the DNA markers are not strong enough for a conclusive comparison. However, testing methods are improving and the sample will undergo further tests as the technology becomes available. Police won't say if they have a suspect in mind to match the DNA against.

However, other sources have revealed a number of suspects are still alive.

"There is one in particular that I would love to see matched against any DNA we may get in the future," the investigator said. "Luckily he is incarcerated interstate and will never be released." Last year the Cold Case squad cleared more than 33 sex assaults and several murders committed as far back as the early 1980s.

Read more:
DNA clue to Wanda Beach murders 47 years on

Police scour Wanda Beach following the murders, 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Marianne Schmidt in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Christine Sharrock at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Cold Case: Christine Sharrock and Marianne Schmidt. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Christine Sharrock in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Marianne Schmidt at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

A BLOOD spot may hold vital DNA evidence that could solve one of Sydney's most enduring mysteries.

The blood, taken from the scene of the Wanda Beach murders 47 years ago, belongs to an unknown male and was gleaned from crime scene boxes after cold case detectives revisited the case.

Now police hope new testing methods will give them a fuller profile and provide a breakthrough in the case.

Teenagers Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock were found stabbed and bashed to death in the sand dunes at Wanda beach, in Sydney's south, in January 1965. Despite a number of investigations over the years no one has ever been arrested for the murders of the two 15-year-olds from Ryde.

The Cold Case Squad was told to reinvestigate the case by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione in 2007.

The Cold Case Justice program located clothing belonging to the Wanda Beach victims, had crime scene negatives reprinted and reviewed all the evidence.

A button and zipper were removed from one of the victim's shorts and a sub sample sent to New Zealand for DNA testing but the profile which came back belonged to one of the victims.

Surprised that DNA profiles could still be obtained from a sample so many years old, officers decided to test a blood mark on the shorts that could be a knife wipe mark. A weak male profile was found.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Sweeney, head of the forensic group, said: "We are optimistic that when enhanced with new techniques the DNA could be used against a number of known suspects. What it shows is DNA can be successfully extracted nearly 50 years later and science used to investigate new and old crimes."

Police are being cautious and at the moment it is believed the DNA markers are not strong enough for a conclusive comparison. However, testing methods are improving and the sample will undergo further tests as the technology becomes available. Police won't say if they have a suspect in mind to match the DNA against.

However, other sources have revealed a number of suspects are still alive.

"There is one in particular that I would love to see matched against any DNA we may get in the future," the investigator said. "Luckily he is incarcerated interstate and will never be released." Last year the Cold Case squad cleared more than 33 sex assaults and several murders committed as far back as the early 1980s.

Original post:
DNA clue to 47-year-old murder

Police scour Wanda Beach following the murders, 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Marianne Schmidt in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Christine Sharrock at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Cold Case: Christine Sharrock and Marianne Schmidt. Source: The Daily Telegraph

Christine Sharrock in undated family photo, who was found murdered along with friend Marianne Schmidt at Wanda Beach in Sydney in 1965. Source: The Daily Telegraph

A NEWLY discovered blood spot may hold vital DNA evidence that could solve one of Sydney's most enduring mysteries.

The blood, taken from the scene of the Wanda Beach murders 47 years ago, belongs to an unknown male and was gleaned from crime scene boxes after cold case detectives revisited the case.

Now police hope new testing methods will give them a fuller profile and provide a breakthrough in the case.

Murders that still haunt our state

Teenagers Marianne Schmidt and Christine Sharrock were found stabbed and bashed to death in the sand dunes at Wanda beach, in Sydney's south, in January 1965. Despite a number of investigations over the years no one has ever been arrested for the murders of the two 15-year-olds from Ryde.

The Cold Case Squad was told to reinvestigate the case by Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione in 2007.

The Cold Case Justice program located clothing belonging to the Wanda Beach victims, had crime scene negatives reprinted and reviewed all the evidence.

A button and zipper were removed from one of the victim's shorts and a sub sample sent to New Zealand for DNA testing but the profile which came back belonged to one of the victims.

Surprised that DNA profiles could still be obtained from a sample so many years old, officers decided to test a blood mark on the shorts that could be a knife wipe mark. A weak male profile was found.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Sweeney, head of the forensic group, said: "We are optimistic that when enhanced with new techniques the DNA could be used against a number of known suspects. What it shows is DNA can be successfully extracted nearly 50 years later and science used to investigate new and old crimes."

Police are being cautious and at the moment it is believed the DNA markers are not strong enough for a conclusive comparison. However, testing methods are improving and the sample will undergo further tests as the technology becomes available. Police won't say if they have a suspect in mind to match the DNA against.

However, other sources have revealed a number of suspects are still alive.

"There is one in particular that I would love to see matched against any DNA we may get in the future," the investigator said. "Luckily he is incarcerated interstate and will never be released." Last year the Cold Case squad cleared more than 33 sex assaults and several murders committed as far back as the early 1980s.

See more here:
DNA clue to Wanda Beach murders

By FRED CONNORS - Senior Staff Writer , The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register

CHARLESTON - Controversial legislation that is gaining traction in statehouses across the country has found its way to Charleston.

House Bill 2858 calls for mandatory pre-trial collection of DNA samples from anyone arrested for a felony but not yet convicted. The bill provides for an expungement procedure if the felony charge is dismissed or in the event of an acquittal. Current West Virginia law mandates DNA collection only upon conviction.

"Katie's Law," also known as the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act of 2010, prompted the national movement. It is a federal statute providing financial incentives to states implementing enhanced DNA collection processes for felony arrests.

Delegate John R. Frazier, D-Mercer, introduced the bill in West Virginia.

"It is a way for the state to build a larger DNA database," he said. "It is not very invasive and it will help police in their investigations."

Delegate Michael Ferro, D-Marshall, a co-sponsor of HB 2858 said, "It increases the state database and adds to law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute serial criminals, and to prevent future crimes."

Both lawmakers are on the House Judiciary Committee where the proposal currently resides. Frazier said the bill is a carry-over from last year and he is not sure if it will clear committee and make it to the floor during this legislative session. According to the Legislature's rules, the bill must clear House Judiciary today or it will be done for the session.

While proponents view the measure as being tough on crime, opponents see it as an invasion of civil rights.

Ohio County Prosecutor Scott Smith favors DNA sampling of those arrested for felonies but believes it should be limited to alleged violent offenders.

"I would limit it to those who are arrested for certain felonies such as violent crimes, sexual assault and burglary," he said. "People who engage in those types of crimes are more likely to be involved in other criminal activities; and it is more likely that a statute that is limited in its scope can pass constitutional tests. A statute limited to those crimes is targeting people who may be serial killers, serial rapists and pedophiles and is not simply targeting all persons arrested for a felony."

Smith said if lawmakers are considering the bill, they should include increasing funding for DNA testing.

"We already have a backlog in DNA processing and this will increase the burden," he said.

Joseph Giacalone, a retired detective sergeant and former commanding officer of the Bronx Cold Case Squad in New York City, said the legislation "is a huge win for law enforcement and cold case detectives. Expanding the database provides them with the opportunity to close even more cases and apprehend suspects faster. It prevents further victimization and exonerates the innocent. Since most cases are pleaded out to lower charges, offenders often skirt the DNA sample measure because their felony gets reduced to a misdemeanor."

Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine noted a similar bill was signed into law last year in Ohio.

DeWine said, "132 cold case crimes now have a prime suspect through a DNA match made possible only because of (Ohio) Senate Bill 77 requiring DNA collection on all felony arrestees. With seven months of data, we now see how SB 77 is helping us identify more bad guys who just might have gotten away with their crimes had it not been for the new law."

Some Wheeling criminal defense attorneys take issue with HB 2858.

"I find it appalling that the government can get a DNA sample based upon an accusation," said attorney Robert McCoid.

He said collection of DNA upon arrest constitutes an invasion of privacy that is subject to analysis under the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

"This is Orwellian and reeks of '1984,'" McCoid said.

McCoid also finds fault in the DNA expungement process if charges are dropped.

"It says a person may apply for expungement; and that pre-supposes that it can be denied," he said. "And, when you consider filing fees, court costs and attorney fees, it could cost a person up to $1,000 for something he didn't do."

The expungement process is not included for defendants who cannot afford a private attorney. Shane Welling, chief defender for the First Judicial Circuit Public Defenders Corp., said "expungement is a civil matter and is not something we do."

"My concern is that we are going to have people getting arrested for no other reason than to get their DNA in a database," said attorney Martin Sheehan. "The government just wants data."

He said the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that law enforcement has a right to document observable characteristics such as height, weight and eye color, and to ask for a person's name, address, age and date of birth without violating his Miranda rights.

"DNA sampling upon arrest raises an issue of how much of an intrusion law enforcement is allowed to make into your body," Sheehan said. "Everybody has a right to be left alone. This is an erosion of civil liberties not consistent with the Constitution."

While 26 states and the federal government have enacted similar statutes, the laws are not uniform among the states. Several require a probable cause hearing before DNA samples can be loaded into a database, some pertain to arrest for any felony and others apply to only violent offenses. States laws also vary on whether juvenile arrestees must submit.

According to the National Institute of Justice, all states with laws allowing DNA sampling upon arrest provide a way to expunge profiles if an arrest does not result in a conviction. Nine states automatically expunge a DNA profile if there is no conviction. Others require the person to request expungement.

NIJ also reports the legislation has raised concerns that crime laboratories may be unable to manage an influx of samples from a new source.

Continue reading here:
Bill Calls for DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

February 25, 2012

A ruling by a federal appeals court on Thursday will allow California law enforcement officers to continue collecting DNA samples from adults who were arrested for felonies.

A panel of judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2004 California law requiring officials to collect the DNA samples does not violate the U.S. Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches.

“DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects,” Judge Milan Smith wrote in the decision.

The DNA samples are analyzed for certain identifying markers, and the information is stored in a nationwide database.

A person who is tested and not convicted is able to have the sample destroyed and their DNA profile removed from the database.

In 2009, four California residents asked the court to issue an order barring the state from collecting DNA samples from people who were arrested but not convicted.  The district court rejected the request during that time, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.

However, Judge William Fletcher disagreed, saying fingerprints are taken to identify a person upon arrest, whereas DNA samples “are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without warrant or reasonable suspicion.”

Michael Risher, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the plaintiffs, said that the majority allows the government to treat arrestees as if they have been convicted of some sort of crime.

The law was part of a 2004 ballot measure that took effect in 2009, requiring police to swab an inner cheek of all felony arrestees for DNA.  The previous law required DNA samples from convicted felons.

Risher said in a statement that the state has no evidence that “taking (DNA) from people who are not convicted does anything to solve crime.”

—

On the Net:

Source: RedOrbit Staff & Wire Reports

Link:
DNA Testing Of Suspected Felons Upheld In California

California law enforcement officers can continue collecting DNA samples from adults arrested for felonies, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2004 California law requiring officials to collect the DNA samples does not violate the US Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.

"DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the 2-1 majority. The government's interests in the genetic information outweigh any privacy concerns, the majority concluded.

The DNA samples, from a swab of an inmate's cheek, are analyzed for certain identifying markers and the information is then stored in a nationwide database. Someone who is tested and not convicted can ask to have the sample destroyed and their DNA profile removed from the database.

Four California residents, who had been arrested for felonies but who were not convicted, filed a class action in 2009 against officials who run the state's DNA collection system. They asked the court to issue an order barring California from collecting DNA samples from people who were arrested but not convicted. The district court rejected that request, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.

The appeals court found that the arrestees' DNA profiles contained such minimal information that they were comparable to traditional fingerprints.

But Judge William Fletcher dissented. Fingerprints are taken to identify a person upon arrest, whereas DNA samples "are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion," he wrote.

"The majority allows the government to treat arrestees, who are presumed innocent, as if they've been convicted of some sort of crime," said Michael Risher, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the plaintiffs. He said his clients would seek review by the full 9th Circuit.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris praised the ruling as "a victory for public safety in California." She said in a statement that the collection of DNA from adult felony arrestees had helped solve thousands of crimes.

Many states, as well as the federal government, have passed laws requiring people who are arrested to provide their DNA. Last year, in United States v. Mitchell, the 3rd Circuit upheld DNA testing as "an accurate, unique, identifying marker - in other words, as fingerprints for the twenty-first century." Ruben Mitchell, who was charged with intent to distribute cocaine, has appealed that case to the Supreme Court.

-Reuters

See the article here:
US court finds DNA testing constitutional

(REUTERS) - California law enforcement officers can continue collecting DNA samples from adults arrested for felonies, a federal appeals court ruled.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that a 2004 California law requiring officials to collect the DNA samples does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.

"DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the 2-1 majority. The government's interests in the genetic information outweigh any privacy concerns, the majority concluded.

The DNA samples, from a swab of an inmate's cheek, are analyzed for certain identifying markers and the information is then stored in a nationwide database. Someone who is tested and not convicted can ask to have the sample destroyed and their DNA profile removed from the database.

Like us on Facebook

Four California residents, who had been arrested for felonies but who were not convicted, filed a class action in 2009 against officials who run the state's DNA collection system. They asked the court to issue an order barring California from collecting DNA samples from people who were arrested but not convicted. The district court rejected that request, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.

The appeals court found that the arrestees' DNA profiles contained such minimal information that they were comparable to traditional fingerprints.

But Judge William Fletcher dissented. Fingerprints are taken to identify a person upon arrest, whereas DNA samples "are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion," he wrote.

"The majority allows the government to treat arrestees, who are presumed innocent, as if they've been convicted of some sort of crime," said Michael Risher, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the plaintiffs. He said his clients would seek review by the full 9th Circuit.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris praised the ruling as "a victory for public safety in California." She said in a statement that the collection of DNA from adult felony arrestees had helped solve thousands of crimes.

Many states, as well as the federal government, have passed laws requiring people who are arrested to provide their DNA. Last year, in United States v. Mitchell, the 3rd Circuit upheld DNA testing as "an accurate, unique, identifying marker - in other words, as fingerprints for the twenty-first century." Ruben Mitchell, who was charged with intent to distribute cocaine, has appealed that case to the Supreme Court.

(Editing by Eddie Evans and Eric Beech)

Original post:
DNA Testing is Constitutional, Rules U.S. Appeals Court

Law enforcement officers may take a DNA sample from anyone arrested on a felony charge without running afoul of the suspect's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

The challenge brought by a group of Californians arrested for alleged felonies but never convicted upheld a 2004 amendment to the state's laws governing DNA collection and use.

In a 2-1 ruling, a panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals compared taking an oral swab from a suspect with fingerprinting arrestees, a decades-old booking practice consistently upheld by the courts as a legitimate identification aid.

"We assess the constitutionality of the 2004 amendment by considering the 'totality of the circumstances,' balancing the arrestees' privacy interests against the government's need for the DNA samples," said the opinion written by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr.

"DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement officials to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects," wrote Smith, who was named to the court by President George W. Bush, in an opinion joined by a visiting Tennessee judge appointed by President Reagan. "After weighing these factors, we conclude that the government's compelling interests far outweigh arrestees' privacy concerns."

The sole Democratic appointee on the panel, Judge William A. Fletcher, dissented, calling the law authorizing DNA sampling for investigative purposes contrary to Supreme Court and 9th Circuit precedent.

Fletcher, an appointee of President Clinton, noted that three of the four lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit had been arrested during demonstrations in the Bay Area in 2009, including a UC Berkeley student protesting tuition hikes and faculty layoffs.

Elizabeth Haskell, another of the plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, was arrested during a peace demonstration in San Francisco three years ago. No charges were filed, but she was threatened with prosecution unless she submitted to the DNA collection. She told the court she considered the swabbing "an intimidation tactic" aimed at stifling her free speech rights.

Michael T. Risher, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, said a petition for rehearing by the full 9th Circuit was likely and that he expected the judges to be inclined to reconsider the split panel ruling.

"This is clearly an issue where different reasonable judges have differing opinions, and we'll have to see how it ends up," Risher said.

About 300,000 people are arrested for alleged felonies each year in California, and a third are never convicted, Fletcher wrote. Many, including two of the plaintiffs, are never even charged, he added.

Once an arrestee's DNA sample is taken by swabbing the inside of the mouth, it is analyzed to produce a genetic profile of the individual and submitted to the Combined DNA Index System, known as CODIS, and available to law enforcement from all 50 states and the federal government. Genetic evidence from unsolved crime scenes also resides in the database and is scanned weekly for matches with arrestee profiles.

carol.williams@latimes.com

More:
Appeals court upholds DNA testing of felony suspects

A federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled Thursday that a California law requiring the taking of a DNA sample from every adult arrested for a felony does not violate the Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches.

The panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 to uphold the law, which permits the collected samples to be stored in a nationwide database for potential use in future investigations.

Challengers had argued in a class-action lawsuit that the DNA law – passed in 2004 as Proposition 69 – would facilitate the use of their DNA samples in future investigations without the government first obtaining a warrant or reasonable suspicion. They said such actions violate Fourth Amendment privacy protections.

“We conclude that the government’s compelling interests far outweigh arrestees’ privacy concerns,” wrote Judge Milan Smith in a 33-page decision joined by Senior District Judge James Dale Todd.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

In a dissent, Judge William Fletcher said the DNA law ignores an important distinction that he said applies to the collection of fingerprints.

“Fingerprints may be taken from an arrestee in order to identify him – that is, to determine whether he is who he claims to be. But fingerprints may not be taken from an arrestee solely for an investigative purpose, absent a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the fingerprints would help solve the crime for which he was taken into custody,” Judge Fletcher wrote in his 27-page dissent.

“DNA samples are not taken from felony arrestees under Proposition 69 in order to identify them,” he said. “Rather, they are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.”

The taking and storage of such DNA samples, solely for future investigations, is invalid under existing legal precedents, Fletcher said.

Fletcher also noted that all four of the plaintiffs were arrested for felonies but none were convicted. Two were not even charged.

Judge Smith said Fletcher’s fingerprint and DNA analogy rested on an “unprecedented and misguided reading of the Fourth Amendment.”

“Were he correct, our entire criminal justice system would be upended,” Smith said. “For example, under our dissenting colleague’s theory, the police could never be allowed to match crime scene fingerprints to databases of prints collected from past arrestees.”

A key issue in the case was the difference between the privacy interests of an arrestee versus the privacy interests of a convicted felon.

Forty-seven states and the federal government authorize DNA collection from all convicted felons, while 22 states and the federal government allow DNA collection as well from at least some arrestees.

Plaintiffs had argued that not all arrestees will be convicted. A mere arrestee maintains a higher level of Fourth Amendment protection from government intrusions than convicted felons, they said.

“We have never allowed the compulsory taking of DNA samples from mere arrestees. We should not begin now,” Fletcher said.

The majority judges countered that the actual DNA collection was a “minor inconvenience” involving a cotton swab scraped along the inside of a subject’s cheek.

Such an intrusion is far less than others in a jail setting, like strip searches and monitored use of the toilet and showers.

Smith said the DNA testing and storage program fulfilled four important government interests. It helped to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, prevent future crimes, and exonerate the innocent.

The majority rejected concerns that DNA data might be misused or contribute to an all-knowing surveillance state. “Although plaintiffs use the phrase ‘DNA profile’ to evoke images of an oppressive ‘Big Brother’ cataloguing our most intimate traits, the reality is far less troubling,” Smith wrote.

California’s law and others include safeguards restricting the use of the data for law enforcement identification purposes only, he said, similar to the use of the fingerprint database.

The California law includes a mechanism for the expunging of DNA data in cases where charges were dropped or the arrestee was acquitted. But Fletcher noted that it is up to the arrestee to expend his or her own time and money to remove the data from the national database.

How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

See original here:
Is taking DNA a reasonable search? US judges uphold California law

(Reuters) - California law enforcement officers can continue collecting DNA samples from adults arrested for felonies, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday.

A divided three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2004 California law requiring officials to collect the DNA samples does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable searches.

"DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects," Judge Milan Smith wrote for the 2-1 majority. The government's interests in the genetic information outweigh any privacy concerns, the majority concluded.

The DNA samples, from a swab of an inmate's cheek, are analyzed for certain identifying markers and the information is then stored in a nationwide database. Someone who is tested and not convicted can ask to have the sample destroyed and their DNA profile removed from the database.

Four California residents, who had been arrested for felonies but who were not convicted, filed a class action in 2009 against officials who run the state's DNA collection system. They asked the court to issue an order barring California from collecting DNA samples from people who were arrested but not convicted. The district court rejected that request, and the 9th Circuit upheld that decision.

The appeals court found that the arrestees' DNA profiles contained such minimal information that they were comparable to traditional fingerprints.

But Judge William Fletcher dissented. Fingerprints are taken to identify a person upon arrest, whereas DNA samples "are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion," he wrote.

"The majority allows the government to treat arrestees, who are presumed innocent, as if they've been convicted of some sort of crime," said Michael Risher, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represented the plaintiffs. He said his clients would seek review by the full 9th Circuit.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris praised the ruling as "a victory for public safety in California." She said in a statement that the collection of DNA from adult felony arrestees had helped solve thousands of crimes.

Many states, as well as the federal government, have passed laws requiring people who are arrested to provide their DNA. Last year, in United States v. Mitchell, the 3rd Circuit upheld DNA testing as "an accurate, unique, identifying marker - in other words, as fingerprints for the twenty-first century." Ruben Mitchell, who was charged with intent to distribute cocaine, has appealed that case to the Supreme Court.

(Reporting by Terry Baynes; editing by Eddie Evans and Eric Beech)

Link:
U.S. appeals court finds DNA testing constitutional

California's voter-approved law requiring police to take DNA samples from anyone arrested on a felony charge is constitutional because it intrudes only minimally on privacy while enhancing the state's ability to solve crimes and clear the innocent, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

DNA sampling is no more invasive than fingerprinting and provides an "extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement," the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said in a 2-1 ruling.

Dissenting Judge William Fletcher, however, said fingerprints contain less information than DNA and are used for a different reason - to identify suspects. He said DNA shouldn't be collected from suspects who have already been identified through fingerprints, and haven't been convicted yet, merely to try to connect them to other crimes.

The law, part of a 2004 ballot measure that took effect in 2009, requires police to swab an inner cheek of all felony arrestees for DNA and enter the information in a national database. The previous law required DNA samples from convicted felons.

Those who are not convicted of the new charges within three years can ask a judge to remove their genetic data, but prosecutors can veto that request.

The California Supreme Court is reviewing a separate challenge to the law. Michael Risher, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer, said both cases are headed for the U.S. Supreme Court, along with a federal law allowing officers to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for any federal crime.

Thursday's ruling allows the government to "treat people who have not been convicted of anything, and are presumed innocent, as if they've been found guilty," said Risher, who argued against the DNA law. He said the state has no evidence that "taking (DNA) from people who are not convicted does anything to solve crime."

Attorney General Kamala Harris, whose office defended the law, called the ruling "a victory for public safety." She said DNA from felony arrestees "has assisted law enforcement in solving thousands of crimes."

In Thursday's ruling, Judge Milan Smith said DNA collection is "a minor inconvenience" that is "far less intrusive" than the police-supervised blood extraction from a suspected drunken driver that the Supreme Court approved in 1966.

He said opponents' "images of an oppressive Big Brother" were misplaced. A suspect's DNA profile contains only limited, essential information, the law makes it a crime to misuse the data and innocent suspects can get themselves removed from the database, the judge said.

Fletcher's dissent questioned the effectiveness of those safeguards and said DNA sampling "reveals information about familial relationships," which can be used to broaden police investigations of evidence found at crime scenes.

The ruling can be viewed at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2012/02/23/10-15152.pdf.

This article appeared on page C - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Continue reading here:
DNA samples of felony arrestees OK, court rules

A 2004 law requiring jailers to take DNA samples from anyone arrested for alleged felonies doesn't violate the prisoners' constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, a divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the government's interests in solving crimes and positively identifying suspects outweigh the detainees' privacy concerns.

The panel majority -- both judges named to the federal bench by Republican presidents -- likened the minimally invasive oral swabbing of those entering the jails to fingerprinting, a decades-old booking practice for identification purposes that has been consistently upheld by the courts.

“DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement officials to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects,” Judge Milan D. Smith Jr. wrote in the opinion joined by a visiting federal judge from Tennessee.

But Judge William A. Fletcher dissented, arguing that 9th Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court case law make clear that DNA testing for investigative purposes requires a warrant and probable cause to believe a felony has been committed.

About a third of the 300,000 arrested on felony allegations each year in California aren't convicted, and many are never charged at all, said Fletcher, named to the court by President Clinton.

Three of the four lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit brought on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California had been arrested at demonstrations in the Bay Area against U.S. foreign policy and state college tuition hikes.

Elizabeth Haskell, who was arrested at a peace demonstration in San Francisco in 2009, was threatened with prosecution unless she submitted to the DNA collection but was never charged.

She told the court she considered the swabbing "an intimidation tactic" to deter her from exercising her free-speech rights.

Michael T. Risher, the ACLU lawyer who argued the case, said a petition for rehearing by the full 9th Circuit was likely and that he expected the judges to be inclined to reconsider the split panel ruling.

"This is clearly an issue where different reasonable judges have differing opinions and we’ll have to see how it ends up,” Risher said.

ALSO:

Blue Line delays expected during evening rush hour

Sheriff Baca backs driver's licenses for illegal immigrants

Teacher accused of having sex with students was removed last week

-- Carol J. Williams

More here:
DNA testing of felony suspects upheld by appeals court

Photo: AP/Thomas Kienzle

A federal appeals court Thursday upheld a voter-approved measure requiring California authorities to take a DNA sample from every adult arrested on felony accusations in the Golden State.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the challenge in hopes of striking down the measure, argued that DNA sampling of arrestees was an unconstitutional Fourth Amendment search and privacy breach. A lower court had refused to stop the program that has resulted in California securing a DNA database of more than 1.5 million people.

“DNA analysis is an extraordinarily effective tool for law enforcement officials to identify arrestees, solve past crimes, and exonerate innocent suspects. After weighing these factors, we conclude that the government’s compelling interests far outweigh arrestees’ privacy concerns,” Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote (.pdf) for the 2-1 appeals panel.

He added that DNA collection “is substantially indistinguishable from traditional fingerprinting as a means of identifying arrestees and, incidentally, tying arrestees to criminal investigations.”

At least 21 states have regulations requiring suspects to give a DNA sample upon an arrest. President Barack Obama supports taking DNA when a suspect is arrested.

Proposition 69, adopted in 2004 and fully implemented in 2009, requires adult detainees to provide a saliva, or sometimes a blood sample, upon felony arrest. The sample is stored in state and FBI databases, even if the arrested adult is never charged or convicted of a crime.

About 100,000 persons arrested for felonies in California are ultimately cleared every year.

In dissent, Judge William Fletcher disputed Smith’s reasoning.

I would conclude that Proposition 69 is unconstitutional. My reasoning is straightforward. Fingerprints may be taken from an arrestee in order to identify him — that is, to determine whether he is who he claims to be. But fingerprints may not be taken from an arrestee solely for an investigative purpose, absent a warrant or reasonable suspicion that the fingerprints would help solve the crime for which he was taken into custody. DNA samples are not taken from felony arrestees under Proposition 69 in order to identify them. Rather, they are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion.

Judge Smith countered, saying Fletcher’s dissent was an “unprecedented and misguided reading of the Fourth Amendment.”

The lawsuit (.pdf) does not challenge DNA sampling for convicted felons or for DNA samples required by a court order.

The ACLU, like Fletcher, said DNA sampling is different from compulsory fingerprinting. A fingerprint, for example, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, health risks and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

What’s more, in California, the authorities conduct so-called “familial searching.” That is when a genetic sample does not directly match another, so authorities start investigating people with closely-matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator. In 2010, for example,  California authorities arrested Lonnie David Franklin Jr. as the suspected “Grim Sleeper” serial killer, basing their case in part on a DNA match of crime scene evidence to a sample from his incarcerated son.

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. Still, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

The plaintiffs in the case include an Oakland woman whose DNA was taken after she was arrested during a war protest in San Francisco and was never charged. Another plaintiff was arrested in Sacramento on accusations of being in possession of stolen properly. His DNA was taken and he was never charged.

Arrestees not convicted may petition the courts or the California Department of Justice to destroy and expunge their DNA profile. However, individuals must await the expiration of the statute of limitations for the crimes for which they were arrested before requesting expungement, unless prosecutors dismiss the charges sooner.

Visit link:
Court OKs Taking DNA From Felony Arrestees

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A divided federal appeals court ruled Thursday that California law enforcement officials can keep collecting DNA samples from people arrested for felonies.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said law enforcement's interest in solving cold cases, identifying crime suspects and even exonerating the wrongly accused outweigh any privacy concerns raised by the forced DNA collections.

The 2-1 ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by four Californians who were arrested on felony charges but never convicted.

The arrestees sought a court order barring collection of DNA from people who are arrested but not convicted, arguing the process is an unconstitutional search and seizure since some suspects will later be exonerated.

The DNA samples are obtained with a swab of the cheek and stored in the state's DNA database, which contains 1.9 million profiles. Arrestees who are never charged with a felony can apply to have their samples expunged from the database.

The state Department of Justice said it has had roughly 20,000 "hits" connecting suspects with previous crimes since it began collecting the DNA profiles.

Judge Mylan Smith Jr., writing for the two-judge majority, said the useful law enforcement tool wasn't any more intrusive than fingerprinting.

"Law enforcement officers analyze only enough DNA information to identify the individual, making DNA collection substantially similar to fingerprinting, which law enforcement officials have used for decades to identify arrestees, without serious constitutional objection," wrote Smith, who also said investigators are prohibited by law from misusing the database.

Judge William Fletcher dissented, writing that fingerprinting a suspect is done exclusively for identification purposes. The DNA samples, he wrote, "are taken solely for an investigative purpose, without a warrant or reasonable suspicion."

Fletcher noted that one-third of the 300,000 people arrested in the state for felonies each year are never charged with felonies. He said the state's offer to remove those samples from the database for those who apply is onerous.

"Expungement is a lengthy, uncertain and expensive process, Fletcher said. "Arrestees seeking expungement must pay their own expenses and attorney's fees."

Fletcher said he believed the privacy rights of arrestees never charged with felonies should trump law enforcement's need to collect to the DNA.

The same issue is also making its way through the state court system. A Court of Appeal decision striking down the collection as unconstitutional was put on hold when the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

View original post here:
Court: California can force inmates to submit DNA

Researchers from Harvard University in the United States have built "DNA origami" nanorobots to hunt down and destroy cancer cells in the body.

The nanorobots can transport payloads such as drug molecules and antibodies to specific cells of the body, tech site Technorati reported.

"We can finally integrate sensing and logical computing functions via complex, yet predictable, nanostructures — some of the first hybrids of structural DNA, antibodies, aptamers and metal atomic clusters — aimed at useful, very specific targeting of human cancers and T-cells," Technorati quoted George Church, Ph.D., a Wyss core faculty member and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School who is Principal Investigator on the project, as saying.

The report said the scientists used “DNA origami” to develop the containers with folded DNA chains.

Aptamers were used to lock the barrel-shaped robot and to recognize specific cell types.

Researchers used these robots in different cultures of cancerous cells such as leukemia and lymphoma, and found the unlocking of the robots occurred on contact with the cancer cell proteins.

This led to the release of antibodies that stopped the growth of the cancer cells.

"Although the robots caused some problems of toxicity but those problems were less than most of the chemicals and materials would have," Technorati said.

A separate article on tech site Mashable said the study was published in Science on Thursday. Its researchers - Shawn Douglas, Ido Bachelet, and Church - are all affiliated with Harvard University’s Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering.

Douglas developed the open-source software the researchers used called Cadnano to design the structures.

It said the nanorobots mimic a cell’s receptor system to communicate with cells.

Once the nanorobot detects the cells it is looking for, it will spring into action.

Each nanobot can hold molecules to be delivered to cells. On the outside of the nanobots would be two strands that could help recognize target cells, and release their contents at the right time.

While the system has yet to be tested in living organisms, the researchers are considering testing the nanorobots in mice. — TJD, GMA News

Originally posted here:
'DNA Origami' nanorobots hunt and kill cancer cells