Please use this space to respectfully and intellectually debate the
issues surrounding DNA fingerprinting. Express your
opinion in a productive, focused and open-minded way. If any of your
posts have to be removed, you will lose classwork credit.
I believe that DNA fingerprinting can be both a good and bad thing, but I lean more toward the beneficial side. DNA fingerprinting can be used in many different areas, but the most common is in criminal investigations. This is a very good idea due to the fact several people no longer have fingerprints (they can be bleached) and also because NO ONE (well, maybe a twin) has the exact same DNA as you. This is a very costly process and can easily be abused. (All things can be abused, though.) This process can be both beneficial and negative; however, I personally side with the beneficial side. :3
As you guys probably know, DNA fingerprinting is where they take someone's DNA and use it as a form of identification, like fingerprints. The most common use for it that I found while researching was to identify criminals from a crime scene. I found some sources that were against it and some that were for it. Personally, I believe that it is a good idea. For example, as mentioned above about the crime scenes, the criminal could be experienced. They would probably be careful to not leave any evidence, including wiping down the fingerprints. If the government had a database of DNA of people, then there would be an increased chance of finding the criminal. There is a possibility that there would be a perfect DNA match to someone who is innocent (due to the fact that they only take a sample of the DNA, not the whole sequence), but it is highly unlikely (one in a billion chance). Because DNA fingerprinting is useful, I am all for it.
i agree with your statement. i have seen closed murder cases reopened and solved mostly due to DNA fingerprinting. dating back to the 1600s (believe it or not) it has proven very useful, mostly in the fields of criminal justice.
I think fingerprinting is a beneficial thing because if we didn't have it a lot of criminals would be running around continueing to commit serious crimes against people.
I think that this is also a beneficial thing. DNA helps define a person by who they are, and if you don't mess with it, you can have it as a form of identification
I agree with Duncan because DNA is the identity of the person, and if mess with their DNA then they lose their identity. I believe DNA fingerprinting is beneficial because this technique can be used to track people down after a crime.
I agree with you Yuina. I am for it if it is used for the right reasons. I think the only thing we need to worry about is WHO gets the DNA information. Like Mrs. Fleener said to me yesterday, your health insurance company may raise your rates if you are likely to have a heart attack in your life. (This is information that they would get through your DNA.) If it's being used for reasons that are beneficial and not harmful to anyone, then I am for it. :D
I am for DNA finger printing because without it we would have a lo of crazies running around. It helps keep these people from getting away with whatever they have done and they will get the punishement for it. Without DNA finger printing there would be hundreds of unsolved crimes everywhere, because DNA finger printing is one of the main things law enforcement uses to catch criminals.
Finger printing is very beneficial, it helps us catch criminals, and also helps keep track of us humans. If someone got a hold of the fingerprinting information, WE ARE SCREWED..just saying.So as long as we keep it out of reach of bad people, I think we are good with the capability of fingerprinting.
I think that DNA fingerprinting can have a lot more negatives than its positives. Yes it does help find criminals, but companies could use it against their customers or their workers. Like with health insurance, the companies could test their customers for diseases and charge them higher rates based on if they certain diseases or not.
Well, what if someone obtains your fingerprints (records)? They may not reveal the personal information about how someone may/may not be prone to something, but they can also reveal other personal information. If someone had a criminal record, the fingerprints can be used to find the record. The record could include information like ethnic origin. With THAT information, the government (or any other group/person) could discriminate against someone.
According to a table compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) of current state laws regarding the use of genetic information in determining health insurance, Illinois already prohibits insurance companies from:
Using genetic information to establish rules for eligibility Requiring genetic tests/genetic information Using genetic information for risk selection or risk classification purposes Disclosing information without informed consent
States that so far have no laws in place against the use of genetic information in health insurance include:
Mississippi North Dakota Pennsylvania Washington
NCSL also has information on other state genetics laws including those pertaining to employment, frozen embryos, and genetic privacy. Their Genetics Legislation Database also has searchable information on genetics bills considered in state legislatures from 2004 to present.
@Sara: I completely agree with the contents of your argument. However, I draw a more moderate conclusion. I believe that while DNA fingerprinting is an essential technology to crime scene investigation, its commercial use should be highly regulated if not banned outright.
I think that DNA fingerprinting could be both beneficial and harmful. It just depends on what we are using it for. Beneficial- Finding criminals. Harmful- Health Insurance getting a hold of them.
I see no negative values from DNA fingerprinting. It allows the police department, FBI, etc. to track down and identify criminals much faster than normal. Yes there can be mistakes in DNA fingerprinting, but with modern technology such as lie detectors, we can clearly rule out those who are innocent and guilty of the crime.
Lie detectors test strain on the mind when questioned. to avoid a lie detector, be quick witted, and stay calm under accusation. heavy denial makes a mark.
There is a valid contention that DNA evidence could easily be misused by insurance companies, employers, etc.
I support a moderate viewpoint in which DNA fingerprinting is allowed as part of crime scene investigation, but its commercial use is highly regulated if not banned outright.
Depending on which side of the "story" you look at depends on whether it is beneficial or not really. For a victim in a crime it can be used to catch a criminal that could harm others so it is really helping other people who could also be attacked. If you are the unlucky person who is put in jail when you are really innocent fingerprinting could be the one thing that keeps you from getting out of jail.
yes there are two sides of the story but if i had to pick a side it would be a positive thing because it is getting more criminals off the street rather than them hurting more people.
I had the topic of DNA fingerprinting. As i was researching this topic i found a lot of interesting facts. I fully believe that DNA fingerprinting is right. When people commit crimes they used to have a lot of unsolved cases because there was no way to prove that those people did it without DNA. Once DNA fingerprinting came out a lot of these cases were solved because it only takes one tiny piece of hair to prove that somebody did it. Many people oppose this because they fear that it's an invasion of their privacy. I think that as long as the DNA Fingerprinting remains in the right people's hands that people should not have to worry about this issue.
DNA fingerprinting seems very beneficial. It keeps more criminals off of the street which then results in a safer community. Even if there are some down sides ,such as misuse, the benefits out weigh the down sides.
DNA Fingerprinting is very helpful. It is not an easily assessed databank, restricted to only some forms of government. It has been used to nail criminals at a vast amount in these few generations since it's come about. Criminals may steal information, but they would need to be insanely skilled in science hacking, and not leaving a trail. (with computers that is almost impossible. why do criminals avoid electronics?) these days 0.5% of false imprisonment happens in the USA. only 20% of that is caused by genetic DNA fingerprinting. medical facilities are not allowed to use the information, due to unethical means. (as I explained above) do you think this will harm us more than it will help us? think again.
What evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that "0.5% of false imprisonment happens in the USA. only 20% of that is caused by genetic DNA fingerprinting."?
When you make this statement, are you not admitting that DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment?
David: Could you explain how DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment? Is there a certain case you can think of? While yes, EVIDENCE has led to incorrect imprisonment, I have not heard of a case where DNA has led to false imprisonment.
I never made the claim that DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment. I was asking Matthew for evidence to substantiate HIS words, not mine. I have not heard of one, either.
Maybe the owner of a hair found at the crime scene was not the person who committed the crime? That's the only way that could happen that I can think of right now.
Yes. If I am understanding you correctly, I was unclear in what I meant. When I said "That's the only way that could happen that I can think of right now," I meant that the hair example (or any other DNA found at the scene) was the only way I could think of the mistake happening. I did not mean that a similar mistake only happens with DNA.
I believe that DNA Fingerprinting is in fact used for the correct reason approximately 99.9 percent of the time. You may ask why? Well of course it has been said a billion of times listed above that it is used in criminal investigations. It also helps us create profiles that can be tracked. That could be bad though... Not everyone wants to be put into a computer database and be "computerized". But most of the time it is not up to you because at birth you usually have a profile set up on basic characteristics and other data such as blood type. This would be an extreme benefit if a situation occurs when you are unable to tell a doctor what blood type you have during an emergency. It is also a precise way to tell if a person is the person they say they are. 1-0
Oh yes, and DNA fingerprinting is the genetic sequence in which an organism can be identified by. This is not in exact terms, but close enough in layman's terms.
What evidence do you have to substantiate the claim that "DNA Fingerprinting is in fact used for the correct reason approximately 99.9 percent of the time."?
DNA fingerprinting is a system created by geneticists in order to identify an organism by its DNA. This practice has since been adopted by law-enforcement officials to determine the identity of criminals who have left behind different types of body parts, such as skin cells, containing DNA. Thanks to the birth of this procedure, hundreds of falsely-accused civilians have been set free and hundreds more criminals have been convicted. This has caused the decrease of crime rates all across the world, as well as, removed the threat of many human "predators." The real ethical debate is in having access to a person's genetic information could be harmful to his or her career or reputation, as someone who could be prone to a certain disease, they could be discriminated against by their employers or their peers.
I believe that DNA fingerprinting is very beneficial, if used by the right people. It would be very useful in criminal investigations by boosting the justice system; however, information that important shouldn't be easily accessed by anyone. There should be some set clearance to be able to use the data.
i believe DNA finger printing is beneficial, because it is a way to catch criminals and even save lives. i agree with these people. this is needed, ecpecially when the population is increasing.
As stated above, DNA finger printing is beneficial seeing as it has decreased the crime rates, and has aided in criminal investigation. I agree with Terrell, that DNA finger printing and its information should not be easily accessible by a common person. There should be limits on how far a person can go with this technology.
As almost everyone stated, DNA fingerprinting is extremely useful for the solving of crimes. A use that could quite possibly affect those of us in a military family is its use to identify soldiers who could not be identified otherwise. An example of its use would be the identification of the soldier who was in the Vietnam Tomb of the Unknowns. He (AF First Lieutenant was then exhumed. If I remember correctly, the military keeps a record of its member's DNA for this purpose
Basically DNA fingerprinting is a necessity only in the hands of those in the Federal Government because genetic discrimination is being used against many people in different career feilds
I lean more toward the benefits. Like said in many of the above comments, DNA fingerprinting can be used to solve crime. This is good as it will limit the amount of crime happening as people understand that they have a higher percentage of getting caught.
I agree with the general consensus. DNA Fingerprinting is an extremely useful tool employed by crime labs and governments across the country. It is great for catching the "bad guys", and for freeing the "good guys". Now granted, it is expensive, but the real question is, "Who is going to be using DNA Fingerprinting besides crime labs and governments? And for what purpose are these people going to be using DNA Fingerprinting for?" Despite the negatives of this process, I am adamantly for the use of DNA Fingerprinting.
I believe that DNA fingerprinting can be both a good and bad thing, but I lean more toward the beneficial side. DNA fingerprinting can be used in many different areas, but the most common is in criminal investigations. This is a very good idea due to the fact several people no longer have fingerprints (they can be bleached) and also because NO ONE (well, maybe a twin) has the exact same DNA as you. This is a very costly process and can easily be abused. (All things can be abused, though.) This process can be both beneficial and negative; however, I personally side with the beneficial side. :3
ReplyDeleteI see what you are saying and i agree..people have to be careful and watch how they use fingerprinting
DeleteAs you guys probably know, DNA fingerprinting is where they take someone's DNA and use it as a form of identification, like fingerprints. The most common use for it that I found while researching was to identify criminals from a crime scene. I found some sources that were against it and some that were for it. Personally, I believe that it is a good idea. For example, as mentioned above about the crime scenes, the criminal could be experienced. They would probably be careful to not leave any evidence, including wiping down the fingerprints. If the government had a database of DNA of people, then there would be an increased chance of finding the criminal. There is a possibility that there would be a perfect DNA match to someone who is innocent (due to the fact that they only take a sample of the DNA, not the whole sequence), but it is highly unlikely (one in a billion chance). Because DNA fingerprinting is useful, I am all for it.
ReplyDeletei agree with your statement. i have seen closed murder cases reopened and solved mostly due to DNA fingerprinting. dating back to the 1600s (believe it or not) it has proven very useful, mostly in the fields of criminal justice.
DeleteI think fingerprinting is a beneficial thing because if we didn't have it a lot of criminals would be running around continueing to commit serious crimes against people.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is also a beneficial thing. DNA helps define a person by who they are, and if you don't mess with it, you can have it as a form of identification
DeleteI agree with Duncan because DNA is the identity of the person, and if mess with their DNA then they lose their identity. I believe DNA fingerprinting is beneficial because this technique can be used to track people down after a crime.
DeleteI agree with you Yuina. I am for it if it is used for the right reasons. I think the only thing we need to worry about is WHO gets the DNA information. Like Mrs. Fleener said to me yesterday, your health insurance company may raise your rates if you are likely to have a heart attack in your life. (This is information that they would get through your DNA.) If it's being used for reasons that are beneficial and not harmful to anyone, then I am for it. :D
ReplyDeleteI pretty much have the same opinion. again.
DeleteI am for DNA finger printing because without it we would have a lo of crazies running around. It helps keep these people from getting away with whatever they have done and they will get the punishement for it. Without DNA finger printing there would be hundreds of unsolved crimes everywhere, because DNA finger printing is one of the main things law enforcement uses to catch criminals.
ReplyDeleteFinger printing is very beneficial, it helps us catch criminals, and also helps keep track of us humans. If someone got a hold of the fingerprinting information, WE ARE SCREWED..just saying.So as long as we keep it out of reach of bad people, I think we are good with the capability of fingerprinting.
ReplyDeleteIt is a way to ID people in another way, and with increasing populations, is needed
ReplyDeleteI think that DNA fingerprinting can have a lot more negatives than its positives. Yes it does help find criminals, but companies could use it against their customers or their workers. Like with health insurance, the companies could test their customers for diseases and charge them higher rates based on if they certain diseases or not.
ReplyDeleteWell, what if someone obtains your fingerprints (records)? They may not reveal the personal information about how someone may/may not be prone to something, but they can also reveal other personal information. If someone had a criminal record, the fingerprints can be used to find the record. The record could include information like ethnic origin. With THAT information, the government (or any other group/person) could discriminate against someone.
DeleteAccording to a table compiled by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) of current state laws regarding the use of genetic information in determining health insurance, Illinois already prohibits insurance companies from:
DeleteUsing genetic information to establish rules for eligibility
Requiring genetic tests/genetic information
Using genetic information for risk selection or risk classification purposes
Disclosing information without informed consent
States that so far have no laws in place against the use of genetic information in health insurance include:
Mississippi
North Dakota
Pennsylvania
Washington
NCSL also has information on other state genetics laws including those pertaining to employment, frozen embryos, and genetic privacy. Their Genetics Legislation Database also has searchable information on genetics bills considered in state legislatures from 2004 to present.
My point is, if this happens, the goverment is trying to put it down.
Delete@Sara:
DeleteI completely agree with the contents of your argument. However, I draw a more moderate conclusion. I believe that while DNA fingerprinting is an essential technology to crime scene investigation, its commercial use should be highly regulated if not banned outright.
I think if we did not have this, most criminals would be running free right now and in the future.
ReplyDeleteI think that DNA fingerprinting could be both beneficial and harmful. It just depends on what we are using it for. Beneficial- Finding criminals. Harmful- Health Insurance getting a hold of them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI see no negative values from DNA fingerprinting. It allows the police department, FBI, etc. to track down and identify criminals much faster than normal. Yes there can be mistakes in DNA fingerprinting, but with modern technology such as lie detectors, we can clearly rule out those who are innocent and guilty of the crime.
ReplyDeletejust a random fact....
DeleteLie detectors test strain on the mind when questioned. to avoid a lie detector, be quick witted, and stay calm under accusation. heavy denial makes a mark.
There is a valid contention that DNA evidence could easily be misused by insurance companies, employers, etc.
DeleteI support a moderate viewpoint in which DNA fingerprinting is allowed as part of crime scene investigation, but its commercial use is highly regulated if not banned outright.
Depending on which side of the "story" you look at depends on whether it is beneficial or not really. For a victim in a crime it can be used to catch a criminal that could harm others so it is really helping other people who could also be attacked. If you are the unlucky person who is put in jail when you are really innocent fingerprinting could be the one thing that keeps you from getting out of jail.
ReplyDeleteI agree Kailey.
DeleteFinegrprinting is helpful to catch criminals, but it isn't the most helpful... like you said they could be innocent.
yes there are two sides of the story but if i had to pick a side it would be a positive thing because it is getting more criminals off the street rather than them hurting more people.
DeleteI had the topic of DNA fingerprinting. As i was researching this topic i found a lot of interesting facts. I fully believe that DNA fingerprinting is right. When people commit crimes they used to have a lot of unsolved cases because there was no way to prove that those people did it without DNA. Once DNA fingerprinting came out a lot of these cases were solved because it only takes one tiny piece of hair to prove that somebody did it. Many people oppose this because they fear that it's an invasion of their privacy. I think that as long as the DNA Fingerprinting remains in the right people's hands that people should not have to worry about this issue.
ReplyDeleteDNA fingerprinting seems very beneficial. It keeps more criminals off of the street which then results in a safer community. Even if there are some down sides ,such as misuse, the benefits out weigh the down sides.
ReplyDeleteDNA Fingerprinting is very helpful. It is not an easily assessed databank, restricted to only some forms of government. It has been used to nail criminals at a vast amount in these few generations since it's come about. Criminals may steal information, but they would need to be insanely skilled in science hacking, and not leaving a trail. (with computers that is almost impossible. why do criminals avoid electronics?) these days 0.5% of false imprisonment happens in the USA. only 20% of that is caused by genetic DNA fingerprinting. medical facilities are not allowed to use the information, due to unethical means. (as I explained above) do you think this will harm us more than it will help us? think again.
ReplyDeleteWhat evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that "0.5% of false imprisonment happens in the USA. only 20% of that is caused by genetic DNA fingerprinting."?
DeleteWhen you make this statement, are you not admitting that DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment?
David: Could you explain how DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment? Is there a certain case you can think of? While yes, EVIDENCE has led to incorrect imprisonment, I have not heard of a case where DNA has led to false imprisonment.
DeleteI never made the claim that DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment. I was asking Matthew for evidence to substantiate HIS words, not mine. I have not heard of one, either.
DeleteSorry, the way you worded your sentence led me to believe that DNA fingerprinting has led to false imprisonment.
DeleteMaybe the owner of a hair found at the crime scene was not the person who committed the crime? That's the only way that could happen that I can think of right now.
Delete@Chris:
DeleteDoesn't that possibility apply to every type of evidence?
Yes. If I am understanding you correctly, I was unclear in what I meant. When I said "That's the only way that could happen that I can think of right now," I meant that the hair example (or any other DNA found at the scene) was the only way I could think of the mistake happening. I did not mean that a similar mistake only happens with DNA.
DeleteI believe that DNA Fingerprinting is in fact used for the correct reason approximately 99.9 percent of the time. You may ask why? Well of course it has been said a billion of times listed above that it is used in criminal investigations. It also helps us create profiles that can be tracked. That could be bad though... Not everyone wants to be put into a computer database and be "computerized". But most of the time it is not up to you because at birth you usually have a profile set up on basic characteristics and other data such as blood type. This would be an extreme benefit if a situation occurs when you are unable to tell a doctor what blood type you have during an emergency. It is also a precise way to tell if a person is the person they say they are. 1-0
ReplyDeleteOh yes, and DNA fingerprinting is the genetic sequence in which an organism can be identified by. This is not in exact terms, but close enough in layman's terms.
DeleteWhat evidence do you have to substantiate the claim that "DNA Fingerprinting is in fact used for the correct reason approximately 99.9 percent of the time."?
DeleteDNA fingerprinting is a system created by geneticists in order to identify an organism by its DNA. This practice has since been adopted by law-enforcement officials to determine the identity of criminals who have left behind different types of body parts, such as skin cells, containing DNA. Thanks to the birth of this procedure, hundreds of falsely-accused civilians have been set free and hundreds more criminals have been convicted. This has caused the decrease of crime rates all across the world, as well as, removed the threat of many human "predators." The real ethical debate is in having access to a person's genetic information could be harmful to his or her career or reputation, as someone who could be prone to a certain disease, they could be discriminated against by their employers or their peers.
ReplyDeleteGreat thinking. I did a research on how DNA backgrounds could affect employment and careers for people.
DeleteI believe that DNA fingerprinting is very beneficial, if used by the right people. It would be very useful in criminal investigations by boosting the justice system; however, information that important shouldn't be easily accessed by anyone. There should be some set clearance to be able to use the data.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you exactly. DNA does not lie (As cheesy at that sounds).
Deletei believe DNA finger printing is beneficial, because it is a way to catch criminals and even save lives. i agree with these people. this is needed, ecpecially when the population is increasing.
ReplyDeleteThat's a very good point. I hadn't even thought about population increase.
DeleteAs stated above, DNA finger printing is beneficial seeing as it has decreased the crime rates, and has aided in criminal investigation. I agree with Terrell, that DNA finger printing and its information should not be easily accessible by a common person. There should be limits on how far a person can go with this technology.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely.
DeleteAs almost everyone stated, DNA fingerprinting is extremely useful for the solving of crimes. A use that could quite possibly affect those of us in a military family is its use to identify soldiers who could not be identified otherwise. An example of its use would be the identification of the soldier who was in the Vietnam Tomb of the Unknowns. He (AF First Lieutenant was then exhumed. If I remember correctly, the military keeps a record of its member's DNA for this purpose
ReplyDelete*purpose.
Delete*purpose.
ReplyDeleteIgnore this comment, it was meant to go with my previous comment.
DeleteBasically DNA fingerprinting is a necessity only in the hands of those in the Federal Government because genetic discrimination is being used against many people in different career feilds
ReplyDeleteI lean more toward the benefits. Like said in many of the above comments, DNA fingerprinting can be used to solve crime. This is good as it will limit the amount of crime happening as people understand that they have a higher percentage of getting caught.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general consensus. DNA Fingerprinting is an extremely useful tool employed by crime labs and governments across the country. It is great for catching the "bad guys", and for freeing the "good guys". Now granted, it is expensive, but the real question is, "Who is going to be using DNA Fingerprinting besides crime labs and governments? And for what purpose are these people going to be using DNA Fingerprinting for?" Despite the negatives of this process, I am adamantly for the use of DNA Fingerprinting.
ReplyDelete