why shouldn't dna be tested?
209197
As individuals we have rights. We have a right to privacy, and this include our DNA. Besides why would the government want to keep track of something so personal for everyone in the country. \n\nBesides, the government has a bad track record of cover ups and basically not playing above the board, how could they (the government)expect us (he people) to trust them with such sensitive information. As far AS I AM CONCERNED I BELIEVE THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING UNETHICAL WITH THE INFORMATION, LIKE CLONING TO BREED SOME SORT OF GOD KNOWS WHAT. THAT'S WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE PRIVY TO EVERYTHING. ITS LIKE INVITING STRANGERS INTO YOUR BEDROOM, OR IN THIS CASE, YOUR BODY. ITS JUST NOT A GOOD IDEA!
241497
It can be right because resonance can occur and cause that the hydrogen bonds link to another base ( that will cause a mutation). However there will be enzymes to correct that error. And some U residues are methylated so they cannot join to adenine.
95799
DNA testing has an inherent margin of error, even when done properly.\n\nWhen you hear the results of a DNA test, it's always "there is a 99.874 percent probability he is the father," or "the chances he is not a father is 1 in 3.2 billion" or something like that.\n\nNow, considering that the odds of winning the PowerBall jackpot are 147 million to 1; that about 5 billion tickets are sold every year; and that about 15 jackpots are awarded every year, you can see why a judge, looking at odds 20 times steeper, would be inclined to say, "he's the father."
252750
There has been a lot on the news lately about DNA proving people innocent. I'm all for that but, like you, believe if someone commits a crime that requires the death sentence that's what they should get. Death. When you have someone confess to a murder and relates the details and is able to take you to the body what else do we need to know? I also don't believe the inmate should know when they're going to die. Their victim(s) (in case of murderers) didn't know when they were going to die and have time to tell their family that they loved them and see them one more time. Unfortunately, we can't punish the guilty inmate without punishing his innocent family. \n\nI would, however, like to see a plan implemented that would make use of prisoners for life or death row inmates to be utilized to test affects of new products and drugs for human consumption. I have never believed in using animals for testing. If you want to know how a product affects a human then test it on a human. No more guessing at what's going on. A human can verbalize what an animal can't. Not only could the testing time be possibly shortened and the product able to be used by the general public much sooner, but would give them the opportunity to give something back to the society they have taken from. Along with this their families could hold their heads up once more in the fact that their convicted family member IS giving something back instead of only taking. Not only would testing time be saved but possibly money as well. Not to mention the accuracy of the testing to begin with.
640153
They have to do this because only certain parts of DNA are used to ID people. And so much of DNA is similar they prove identity with statistics. So the likelihood of the DNA being the specific person is 1 in 20000 and that linked with other evidence is often more than enough to prove guilt or whatever. There is a law of probability and when things are put together it is very reliable.\n\nOk I am adding on in response to your question. I have consulted a textbook and think that the test described above is pretty conclusive. The textbook describes running a gel with the DNA fragments on it. They space out and are very obviously different to each other and are compared to the original. (see example of gel here http://gallery.hd.org/_c/natural-science/_more1999/_more05/DNA-genetic-fingerprinting-dark-bands-in-gel-are-almost-unique-for-a-given-individual-tweaked-1-AJHD.jpg.html) . Another thing mentioned in my textbook is taking samples from commnunities to compare blood samples. So one could suggest that they took samples of blood from 20000 people in the neighbourhood and only the one persons blood dna fingerprint matched up.
35143
Well, if you watch any of the CSI type shows you'll find out that there are tests for ethnicity, but they may not be blood tests.  I think they involve DNA.
310556
There would be no reason to.If the test was negative when you were at work that's all they need to know.Those workmen comp people are assholes.Don't trust them
399503
ETHICAL ISSUES:  First off, the people in general who have ethical issues with gene testing/sequencing/therapy a lot of the time are uneducated in this field and also have strong religious beliefs.   Gene testing is done a lot of the times in genetic counselling for people who want to know if they will pass down a genetic disorder...I suppose people have issues with this because this leads the the question of abort or not to abort when it comes to an "imperfect" child.  I personally thing gene therapy is an amazing field which will continue to grow, however some people may see this as interfering with what "nature" has planned.  Some of the ethical issues have to do with stem cell research, since these cells are taken from fetuses.  Obviously people who do not believe in abortions are usually against this.  However, you do not have to abort a baby in order to do this kind of research...it can be done with misscarried babies etc etc.  Like I said, they do not know all the "science" behind.\nPOTENTIAL USES: Gene therapy is HUGE right now because it could lead to potential cures for things like organ failure (especially with cloning).  Imagine this...you are on the list for a heart transplant but instead of getting someone elses heart, you recieve your very own cloned heart.  Why is this a good thing?  This is a genetic copy of your own flesh and blood AND you do not have to take immunosupressive drugs for the rest of your life.  Might I add...the average lifespan for a heart transplant is about 10 years...with your "own" heart you might live into your senior years.  Another big thing with gene therapy is the ability to produce genes which are defective in your body normally. For example, people who have diabetes are unable to metabolize sugar properly...so with gene therapy, they are hoping to eventually be able to replace that defective gene with a good one so these people will no longer need to take insulin.\nMany many other things...but hope these are good for you.
317083
Yes, blood tests were used.  But it's very subjective because no one human on earth has a unique blood type, which made it quite possible if a woman was very promiscuous, that there would be more than one man with the same blood type.  It's pretty accurate in certain cases, especially if the possibilities are narrow and you have a variety of blood types in the sample, but today it's only used in preliminary analysis.  If blood type says there's a possibility, then you move on the DNA analysis.  DNA figerprinting and paternity analysis from DNa is the way to go nowadays, the test is cheap, but not worth doing if blood types don't match.  \n\nToday, blood tests are used as complimentary evidence in court but nothing holds up like dna.
437119
Not necessarily "stupid", a bit far fetched maybe. Remember it's just entertainment. I will tell you that the equipment and technology is really there but there aren't really any local law enforcement agencies (local) who can afford the funding to operate such a lab or staff it with the required geniuses to utilize the equipment. They just want the average Joe to think that's how it easy it is to get caught. DNA still takes several weeks to sample and confirm, with a n ample amount much less a drop or swab.
86426
DNA testing requires all parties consent. you may not have much luck with this. your best option is to ask and listen... by listen i mean pay attention to body language and reaction. watch for interaction of your husband and the girl... eye contact and such. you can learn a lot about a relationship by the interaction. you should be able to tell alot from your husbands side as well as your friends.
362081
genetic=can not change DNA.
310302
I believe they are mainly concerned that it not be done with humans nor that we should mix human and animal DNA in an animal.
515339
There are no disadvantage if DNA screening is done properly with appropriate controls and that it is not used as the only means.  DNA screen is almost like taking pictures of individuals and some people are going to look alike no matter how you look at the one or two pictures available.  \n\nFor prenatal diagnosis of genetic diseases, the tests are likely to ask specific question of known diseases.  Certainly it will not detect diseases that are not well studied.  The ethical issue may come in at what one is ready to do with the prenatal diagnosis.  \n\nThe main concern is that if DNA screening is to be used in ethical or legal issues, we need to make sure that the quality controls are carried out and this must become part of the record and can be reviewed by outside qualified scientist.  The quality control is not there in place, using DNA screen may open to wrong answers.  Si it may depend on the continuous oversight on the methodology and limitation recognized by the investigators regarding their own results.
59434
Yes it can, and depending on the DNA sequencing technque and the ancestry of the peole involved it might be quite high.\n\nRemember criminal DNA sequencing doesn't test the whole genome. It only tests a tiny fragment, less than 0.01%. It is estimated that the chances of even such a tiny fragment matching the worng person are less than 1 in a million, but studies over the past few years have indicated that certain populations, such as some Jewish groups, may have much higher chances of random matches. \n\nEven at 1 in million that means thatin a major city like New York or Los Angeles there may be a dozen peole walking arund who match you perfectly.\n\nIn practice people don't get indicted or convicted on the basis of DNA alone. There has to be some other evidence linking them to the crime, even if only circumstancial. Aside from that the law in the US only requires level of proof beyond reasonable doubt. A doubt of less than one in a million is way below the reasonable level.
498100
Yes it should be legal. But DNA evidence should be the main evidence used to convict.
530685
That sample should of got tested by now cause otherwise I don't think they'll be able 2 test it no joke.They can do what ever they want they are idiots they don't care who's life they mess with