<b>Summary of Recommendations</b>

Next: About this document Up: No Title Previous: Toward a Firm

Summary of Recommendations

Although mindful of the controversy concerning the population genetics of DNA markers, the committee has decided to assume that population substructure might exist for currently used DNA markers or for DNA markers that will be used in the future. The committee has sought to develop a recommendation on the statistical interpretation of DNA typing that is appropriately conservative, but at the same time takes advantage of the extraordinary power of individual identification provided by DNA typing. We have sought to develop a recommendation that is sufficiently robust, but is flexible enough to apply not only to markers now used, but also to markers that might be technically preferable in the future. We point out that in using conservative numbers in the interpretation of DNA typing results, any loss of statistical power is often offset through typing of additional loci. The committee seeks to eliminate the necessity to consider the ethnic background of a subject or of the group of potential perpetrators.


1. Devlin B. Risch N. Roeder K. No excess of homozygosity at loci used for DNA fingerprinting. Science. 249:1416-1420, 1990.

2. Cohen JE, Lynch M, Taylor CE, Green P. Lander ES. Forensic DNA tests and Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. (Comment on Devlin et al. Science. 249:1416-1420, 1990.) Science. 253:1037-1039, 1991.

3. Devlin B. Risch N. Roeder K. (Response to Cohen et al. Science. 253:1037-1039, 1991). Science. 253:1039-1041, 1991.

4. Lander ES. Research on DNA typing catching up with courtroom application. (Invited Editorial.) Am J Hum Genet. 48:819-823, 1991. 5. Wooley JR. A response to Lander: The courtroom perspective. Am J Hum Genet. 49:892-893, 1991.

6. Caskey CT. Comments on DNA-based forensic analysis. (Response to Lander. Am J Hum Genet. 48:819, 1991.) Am J Hum Genet. 49:893-905, 1991.

7. Chakraborty R. Statistical interpretation of DNA-typing data. (Letter.) Am J Hum Genet. 49:895-897, 1991.

8. Daiger SP. DNA fingerprinting. (Letter.) Am J Hum Genet. 49:897, 1991.

9. Lander ES. Lander reply. (Letter.) Am J Hum Genet. 49:899-903, 1991.

10.Lewontin RC, Hartl DL. Population genetics in forensic DNA typing. Science.254:1745-1750, 1991.

11. Chakraborty R. Daiger SP. Polymorphisms at VNTR loci suggest homogeneity of the white population of Utah. Hum Biol. 63:571-588, 1991.

12. Chakraborty R. Kidd K. The utility of DNA typing in forensic work. Science. 254:17351739, 1991.

13. Risch N. Devlin B. On the probability of matching DNA fingerprints. Science. 255:717720, 1992.

14. Weir B. Independence of VNTR alleles defined as fixed bins. Genetics, in press. 15. Lewontin RC. The apportionment of human diversity. Evol Biol. 6:381-398, 1972.

16. Deka R. Chakraborty R. Ferrell RE. A population genetic study of six VNTR loci in threeethnicallydefinedpopulations. Genomics. 11:83-92, 1991.

17. Cavalli-Sforza LL, Bodmer WF. The genetics of human populations. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1971.

18. Lempert R. Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence: with thanks to the Reverend Bayes. Cardozo Law Rev. 13:303-341, 1991.

19. Evett 1, Werrett D, Pinchin R. Gill P. Bayesian analysis of single locus DNA profiles. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Identification 1989. Madison, Wisconsin: Promega Corp., 1990.

20. Berry DA. Influences using DNA profiling in forensic identification and paternity cases. Stat Sci. 6:175-205, 1991.

21. Berry DA, Evett IW, Pinchin R. Statistical inferences in crime investigation using DNA profiling. J Royal Stat Soc. [Series C - Applied Statistics], in press.

22. Budowle B. Giusti AM, Waye JS, Baechtel FS, Fourney RM, Adams DE, Presley LA, Deadman HA, Monson KL. Fixed-bin analysis for statistical evaluation of continuous distributions of allelic data from VNTR loci, for use in forensic comparisons. Am J Hum Genet. 48-841 -855, 1991.

23. DiLonardo AM, Darlu P. Baur M, Orrego C, King MC. Human genetics and human rights: identifying the families of kidnapped children. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 5:339-347, 1984.

24. King MC. An application of DNA sequencing to a human rights problem. Pp. 117-132 in: Friedmann T. ed. Molecular Genetic Medicine. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press,1991.

25. California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors, DNA Committee, Reports to the Board of Directors: 1, August 25, 1987; 2, November 19, 1987; 3, March 28, 1988; 4, May 18, 1988; 5, October 1, 1988; 6, October 1, 1988.

26. Lander ES. DNA fingerprinting on trial. (Commentary.) Nature. 339:501-505, 1989.

27. The fallibility of forensic DNA testing: of proficiency in public and private laboratories. Part 1. The private sphere. Sci Sleuth Rev. 14(2):10, 1990.

28. Dausset J. Cann H. Cohen D, Lathrop M, Lalouel J-M, White R. Centre d'Etude du Polymorphisme Humain (CEPH): collaborative genetic mapping of the human genome. Genomics. 6:575-577, 1990.

29. Jeffreys A, MacLeod A, Tamaki K, Neil D, Monckton D. Minisatellite repeat coding as a digital approach to DNA typing. Nature. 354:204-209, 1991.

Next: About this document Up: No Title Previous: Toward a Firm