Category Archives: Transhuman News

News & Observer

DNA Day teaches about science and scientists News & Observer Visibility is a key goal of North Carolina DNA Day, a science outreach event that commemorates the discovery of the double helical structure of DNA and the completion of the human genome sequence. Research shows that when you ask a child to draw a ...

Original post:
DNA Day teaches about science and scientists - News & Observer

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Anthony Wright describes the day he was released from prison after 25 years "the greatest day of my life." He wants to ensure no one has to experience what he had to endure ever again.

Wright, of Philadelphia, plead guilty in 1991 of a crime he did not commit. Released from prison lat August, Wright, along with advocates from the Pennsylvania Innocence Project, are pushing for new legislation which would strengthen the state's post-conviction relief laws, expanding access to DNA testing for those already convicted of crimes.

"What happened to me 25 years ago changed my life," Wright said. "I'm not the first person this has happened to and I guarantee it won't be the last. We want to stop it so it doesn't happen to nobody else."

On Monday, Wright was the main witness testifying for the legislation, which is expected to have competing bills in the State House and Senate. State Representative Tedd Nesbit (R-Mercer) will sponsor the yet-to-be-assigned house bill, while Republican Judiciary Committee Chairman Stewart Greenleaf will author the Senate's bill.

In 1991, Wright pleaded guilty to rape and first-degree murder of Louise Talley. In 2005, he petitioned to test for DNA samples in the rape kit to help exonerate him. However, Wright was ineligible for DNA testing due to a state law which bars the retesting of DNA samples for those found guilty of crimes. Wright's push for a new trial reached the Supreme Court, which eventually led to a new hearing. In the new trial, DNA evidence excluded Wright as Talley's rapist, instead identifying Ronnie Byrd, a man who passed away in 2013.

In August 2016, Wright was found not guilty of raping and murdering Louise Talley, and was set free.

"It's the best evidence in the world," Wright says of DNA testing. "It says two things: Guiilty or not guilty. There's no in between."

At Monday's Senate Judiciary hearing, hosted by legislation sponsor Sen. Greenleaf, the proposed bill seemed to get bipartisan support.

"If there is DNA available, for God sakes, for the victim too, because no one benefits from an innocent person being in prison," said Senator Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery).

However, prosecutors from the District Attorneys Association wonder if allowing DNA testing for everyone would "open the flood gates" for everyone to challenge their conviction.

Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico admits the current law needs tweaking, mostly because of the changes and advancements in science and technology as it relates to DNA.

"There just needs to be a legitimate avenue for it," Marsico said. "We are in favor of DNA testing in proper cases."

One area which he feels could be the first to see tweaks is a state law which states a Post-Conviction Relief Hearing can only be filed within 60 days after new evidence was discovered.

Senator Art Haywood, a Democrat from Philadelphia County, asked Marsico during the hearing, "What's the number of cases that is too many to make sure we have one innocent freed?"

Marsico responded, "I don't think its any particular number but we have to be cognizant. I don't want a guy who had a retail theft 30 years ago taxing (District Attorneys) when there's nothing out there that would lead to innocence."

40.273191 -76.886701

See the rest here:
Pa. lawmakers consider stronger laws for post-conviction DNA ... - FOX43.com

INDIANAPOLIS Indiana law enforcement is entering a brave new world where police can obtain and test any Hoosier's DNA profile against crime scene evidence, so long as a prosecutor can show the person probably committed a felony.

Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb on Friday signed into law Senate Enrolled Act 322 requiring police to take a cheek swab DNA sample from every person arrested for a felony, starting in 2018.

Currently, only individuals convicted of felonies have their DNA records permanently entered into a state police database.

State Sen. Erin Houchin, R-Salem, the sponsor of the new law, said she expects police will catch more criminals once they have a bigger pool of DNA records to check against blood, fluids and other detritus gathered at crime scenes.

She also refused to rule out someday expanding the DNA collection mandate to include those arrested for misdemeanors or traffic infractions.

"DNA profiling is an accurate, widely used tool that will help law enforcement solve crimes and convict those who are responsible," Houchin said.

The new law provides that an individual's DNA sample only will be added to the state's database after a judge affirms that police had probable cause to arrest the person, which means it's more likely than not the person committed the crime he or she is accused of.

That's a significantly lower standard than the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction.

If prosecutors are unable to convict, the law establishes a process for the person to request his or her DNA be expunged from the state database.

However, the Indiana Code also provides that if the record is not deleted as requested, that oversight does not invalidate any future arrest or conviction based on DNA evidence that shouldn't be in the database.

State Sen. Mike Young, R-Indianapolis, opposed the measure because he said it runs afoul of 4th Amendment protections against illegal police searches because an arrestee's DNA record will be used for investigatory purposes, not just identification.

"This is no different than the government coming in your house looking for evidence to see if there's anything laying around that they might be able to put together to find out you committed another crime. There is no difference," Young said.

"Why can't we just do it the right way and get a warrant?" he asked.

The law was approved 36-13 by the Senate and 84-13 in the House. Both chambers are Republican-controlled.

State Sen. Eddie Melton, D-Merrillville, and state Sen. Lonnie Randolph, D-East Chicago, were the only Northwest Indiana lawmakers to vote against the proposal.

Read the original here:
Indiana to take DNA sample from every person arrested for felony - nwitimes.com

A sonar image showing the ill-fated HMS Erebus shipwreck.

Scientists have extracted DNA from the skeletal remains of several 19th-century sailors who died during the ill-fated Franklin Expedition, whose goal was to navigate the fabled Northwest Passage.

With a new genetic database of 24 expedition members, researchers hope they'll be able to identify some of the bodies scattered in the Canadian Arctic, 170 years after one of the worst disasters in the history of polar exploration.

The results were published April 20 in the Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports.

Led by Sir John Franklin, a British Royal Navy captain, the 129-member crew embarked in 1845 in search of a sea route that would link the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. The sailors were doomed after their ships became trapped in thick sea ice in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in 1846. [In Photos: Arctic Shipwreck Solves 170-Year-Old Mystery]

The last communication, a short note from April 25, 1848, indicated that the surviving men were abandoning their ships the HMS Erebus and HMS Terror just off King William Island and embarking on a harsh journey south toward a trading post on the mainland. None of them seems to have made it even a fifth of the way there.

Over more than a century, search parties and scientists have discovered the remains of several Franklin sailors in boats and makeshift campsites scattered along this route. The bones bear scars of diseases like scurvy. Some even have the signatures of cannibalism, according to one recent study that confirmed the 19th-century reports of Inuit witnesses who had described piles of fractured human bones. Several artifacts from the HMS Erebus, including a medicine bottle and tunic buttons, as well as the ship's bronze bell, have also been uncovered.

In the latest look at the array of bones, a team led by Douglas Stenton of Nunavut's Department of Culture and Heritage, a territory in northern Canada, conducted the first genetic tests on members of the expedition who died following the desertion of the ships.

Stenton and his colleagues were able to get DNA from 37 bone and tooth samples found at eight different sites around King William Island, and they established the presence of at least 24 different members of the expedition. Twenty-one of these individuals had been found at locations around Canada's Erebus Bay, "confirming it as a location of some importance following the desertion of Erebus and Terror," Stenton told Live Science.

The researchers say their results offer a more accurate count of the number of expedition members who died at different locations. A few of the early fatalities were buried at Beechey Island and their frozen remains, which were exhumed by archaeologists in the 1980s, were eerily well-preserved. The bones of the sailors who died after abandoning the ships, however, were much more scattered, dispersed by animal scavenging and human activity.

Stenton said that, in one case, bones from the same individual were found at two different sites about a mile (1.7 kilometers) from each other. The researchers think that an 1879 search party most likely found some of the bones, and then carried them to the new site and reburied them.

Stenton and colleagues hope they will eventually be able to use the database to identify the crew members and better reconstruct what happened in the final months of the expedition.

"We have been in touch with several descendants who have expressed interest in participating in further research," Stenton said. "We hope that the publication of our initial study will encourage other descendants to also consider participating."

Four samples in the study were identified as female, which doesn't fit with the picture of an all-male expedition crew. The authors ruled out the possibility that these samples came from Inuit women because the genetic and archaeological evidence associated with these four individuals also suggests they were European. [Tales of the 9 Craziest Ocean Voyages]

"We were surprised by the results for those samples because in planning the analysis it hadn't occurred to us that there might have been women on board," Stenton told Live Science.

Stenton and his colleagues think the most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that ancient DNA studies commonly fail to amplify the Y chromosome (the male sex chromosome) due to insufficient quantity or quality of DNA, which can result in false female identifications of the dead. However, the researchers noted that it wasn't unheard of for women to serve in disguise in the Royal Navy.

"Some of these women were smuggled onboard [the] ship, and others disguised themselves as men and worked alongside the crew for months or years before being detected or intentionally revealing themselves to be female," the authors wrote.

They cited cases such as Mary Anne Talbot, who served on two Navy ships during the Napoleonic wars of the 18th century before being found out after being wounded. Unfortunately, Stenton said he doesn't think it will be possible to definitively say whether the four Franklin samples are really just false results, but his team concluded that it would have been very unlikely for so many women to be serving secretly on this voyage.

Original article on Live Science.

The rest is here:
Frozen in Time: DNA May ID Sailors Looking for Northwest Passage ... - Live Science

In United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), the Supreme Court added a second test for what government action counts as a Fourth Amendment search. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court had held that the government commits a search when it violates a persons reasonable expectation of privacy. Jones added that the government also commits a search when it trespasses on to a persons persons, houses, papers, and effects. As I explained in an article responding to Jones, it is hardly clear what kind of trespass test Jones adopts. Although Jones purports to restore a preexisting trespass test, no trespass test existed that the court could restore. As a result, the significance of Jones hinges on just what kind of trespass test courts interpret Jones to have adopted.

In light of that uncertainty, I was fascinated by a new decision, Schmidt v. Stassi, from the Eastern District of Louisiana last week. Michael Schmidt is a suspect in the 1997 murder of Eugenie Boisfontaine. You may have heard of the case, as the investigation is the subject of the Discovery Channel TV show Killing Fields. Investigators wanted to get a DNA sample from Schmidt, so they followed his car. When Schmidt drove to a local strip mall, parked and went inside a store, an agent used a cotton swab to wipe the exterior door handle on Schmidts Hummer to collect a DNA sample. Schmidt sued the officers, claiming that swabbing his car door handle was an unlawful Fourth Amendment search.

In the new decision, Judge Lance M. Africk holds that collecting the DNA from the door handle using the cotton swab was a Fourth Amendment search because it trespassed on to the car. From the opinion:

Here, the search involved the physical touching of Schmidts Hummer in a public parking lot. The search, however, did not damage the Hummer in any way. Accordingly, this Court has to make two determinations when evaluating whether a Fourth Amendment search occurred:

Does the trespass-trigger for Fourth Amendment coverage extend to a trespass to chattels? If so, was the physical touching a trespass to chattels even though the touching did not harm or otherwise affect the Hummer?

Joneswhich addressed a trespass against a carsettles that a trespass to chattles can constitute a Fourth Amendment search regardless of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. See 565 U.S. at 410 (observing that officers trespassorily inserted the GPS tracker on the Jeep); see also id. at 419 & n.2 (Alito, J., concurring) (implying Court was concluding that search was a trespass to chattles). Thus, just as a trespass to land can constitute a Fourth Amendment search, a trespass to chattles may as well. See, e.g., United States v. Ackerman, 831 F.3d 1292, 1307-08 (10th Cir. 2016). And there is no question that an automobileunlike an open fieldis protected by the Fourth Amendment: an automobile is an effect as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment. Jones, 565 U.S. at 404.4

But was this a trespass to chattles? That is a trickier issue. As Justice Alitos Jones concurrence explained, the elements of the tort have changed since the founding. At common law, a suit for trespass to chattels could be maintained if there was a violation of the dignitary interest in the inviolability of chattels. 565 U.S. at 419 & n.2 (Alito, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). Meanwhile, today there must be some actual damage to the chattel before the action can be maintained. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). So the choice of a particular understanding of trespass can be outcome determinative when applying Jones if a search does not damage or otherwise affect a particular chattel.

The Court concludes that it should follow the view that an officer need not cause damage before committing a trespass to chattels. Not only is that the view of the Second Restatement of Torts, see Restatement (Second) of Torts 217,5 but it also has the added advantage of not making the scope of the Fourth Amendment turn on whether someone scratches the paint.

The officers argued that Schmidt had abandoned his DNA by leaving it out in public for anyone to collect, analogizing the DNA to the trash left by the side of the road in California v. Greenwood. The court reasoned that Greenwood is inapplicable because the facts here involved a trespass:

[W]hatever the constitutionality of searching Schmidts curbside garbage for his abandoned DNA (a question on which the Court expresses no opinion), the officers argument that they may trespass to acquire abandoned property is not viable post-Jardines. See 133 S. Ct. at 1417 (That the officers learned what they learned only by physically intruding on [defendants] property to gather evidence is enough to establish that a search occurred.).

The Court concludes that the undisputed facts of this case establish that the officers committed a trespass to chattels when they swabbed Schmidts Hummer. Under Jones that trespass also constituted a Fourth Amendment search. Thus, Schmidt is entitled to partial summary judgment in that the swabbing constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment.

The opinion then stresses that given the present procedural posturethe parties addressed only the threshold issue of whether the swabbing was a Fourth Amendment searchthe Court expresses no opinion on whether the search was reasonable. Instead, Africk concludes that qualified immunity applies either way because the law is unsettled:

[T]he law is simply too unsettled after Jones for the Court to conclude that it is beyond debate, Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 741 (2011), that the officers performed a Fourth Amendment search. Neither Jones nor Jardines is precise as to the body of property law this Court is supposed to follow when applying Joness trespass test. That unanswered question at the time of the swabbing would permit a reasonable officer to conclude that the swabbing did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.

For example, a reasonable officer could have concludedjust as the Supreme Court has in the Fifth Amendment contextthat Jones-triggering trespasses are determined by reference to existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 144 (2006) (Scalia, J., dissenting). A reasonable officer could then pivot from that understanding of the Fourth Amendment, and conclude that because the brief, harmless, nearly imperceptible touching would not constitute an actionable trespass under certain understandings of modern tort law, see 565 U.S. at 419 & n.2 (Alito, J., concurring), it did not constitute a Jones-triggering trespass. Therefore qualified immunity is proper: an officer should not be denied qualified immunity simply because he or she looked to what an actionable trespass was as opposed to the more technical definition of a trespass.

Notably, the idea here is that collecting the DNA was a search because it interfered with Schmidts rights in the car, not in the DNA itself. Thats different from the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy cases on collecting DNA, which generally focus on the potential privacy invasion in the testing of the DNA sample to reveal sensitive information.

For related issues, see the petition for certiorari I filed in Arzola v. Massachusetts in 2015, together with the states brief in opposition and our reply brief. The Supreme Court denied the petition in Arzola, but I think its a useful starting point to see how the trespass framework may change Fourth Amendment rights in the context of DNA collection and analysis.

Read more:
Swabbing a car door handle in a public lot to collect DNA is a Fourth Amendment trespass search - Washington Post

New York Times

DNA Tests, and Sometimes Surprising Results New York Times Students at West Chester University in Pennsylvania have volunteered to take part in ancestry DNA testing. Anita Foeman, a communications professor, says she has found that conversations around race are complicated and jagged. CreditWest Chester ...

Read more:
DNA Tests, and Sometimes Surprising Results - New York Times

April 23, 2017 9:36 PM By Kristen Johanson

(Photo credit: DANIEL LEAL-OLIVAS/AFP/Getty Images)

PHILADELPHIA (CBS) For about $200 bucks, and a little bit of spit, you can find out your risk of four certain diseases or conditions, but is it something you would want to know?

23andMe, which typically offers ancestry DNA testing, can also look for genetic markers of certain conditions or illnesses, including Parkinsons and late-on-set Alzheimers.

You can do that test, and look through a handful of genes and say to somebody in most cases either we found something that suggests youre at elevated risks, or, we didnt find that thing, said Dr. Steven Joffe, an Associate Professor of Medical Ethics and Health Policy at UPenn.

He says studies show that people who find out they have genes for certain medical conditions dont change behaviors.

I think we have yet to see evidence of lots of benefits from getting this kind of information back, Joffe said.

He says those who get results that they have a genetic variant for a certain condition should see a doctor.

You might be at elevated risk of Alzheimers or Parkinsons. You certainly should be talking to your doctor, or genetic counselor, or somebody who can help you interpret that information put it in context, said Joffe.

The company was approved to test for 10 diseases or illnesses, but right now is only looking at four.

Kristen Johanson is a reporter for KYW Newsradio. She joined the KYW Newsradio news team after spending four years on the assignment desk at our sister television station, CBS-3, as planning editor. She also worked as a field producer for several...

Best US Destinations For Wine Lovers

Videos

About Us

Advertise

Business Development

Contact

Mobile

Connect

CBS Television Public File

CBS Radio Public File

The rest is here:
DNA Ancestry Site Now Tests For Certain Illnesses - CBS Philly

Hey! Have you seen the commercials about getting your DNA checked? You swab the inside of your mouth and send in a sample and you can find out all kinds of things. You can find out where your ancestors came from and what kind of traits you have. By traits, the report should tell you what kind of food you would eat and whether or not you can run fast. I dont know about you but I cry, Bull to all of that.

One of the ads, claims that a person is from everywhere from India to Western Europe to Oklahoma. That person should run fast, drink coffee and speak Italian. Are you kidding me?

I dont believe any of that is true. Your ancestors may have come from Russia but that doesnt have anything to do with whether or not you would drink vodka. Take a look at any family you know. The environment you live in determines many things. You think? Thats not even true either. Both my parents drank coffee but I never liked the taste of it. That might have been different had my parents made me drink coffee everyday. That would probably not be in my DNA in any way.

Wonder how long these habits or characteristics would take to develop had your ancestors come from a country of fast runners? Just because you have traces of characteristics from several countries in Europe, why dont you speak four languages?

Im not knocking someone wanting to learn about his or her family tree. I just dont think we should over exaggerate what this report will tell us.

Exaggeration is a just part of the advertising process. If exaggeration helps, Go for it.

I recently heard a speaker talking about flying a jet. She proudly proclaimed that her jet had 300 gauges in it. Just imagine going 400 mph and having 300 gauges to look at. Now imagine that it is night.

That sounds really neat but that doesnt mean she can run fast. What it actually means is we all like to exaggerate. In an airplane, there might be a lot of gauges but you dont look at them all at once. The gauges are still there whether you are going 200 or 300. It doesnt matter whether it is day or night. It is just a little exaggeration to help with the talk. Think of all the books in your house. You dont have to read them all at once. Lets just exaggerate about things just a little.

The purpose of all this is to sell more products. Think of all the things you could learn from getting your DNA tested. The jet pilot would be an interesting speaker for your meeting. All of this exaggeration might not be a lie. I certainly dont want to say that. All Im saying is that some ads stretch the validity of a statement. Some exaggerations are just a little too much. Three hundred gauges are probably exaggerated a lot. How can we be sure that the DNA report is correct? You see the point. My favorite exaggeration is doing something a million times. That should show that we have a lot of experience.

Instead it just shows that we exaggerate. A million times does show lots of experience. That is doing something once a day for 2,700 years. Thats a lot no matter where your ancestors are from.

Follow this link:
DNA traits, 300 gauges and other fiction/The Mt. Hope Scrolls - Kingstree News