Challenges to the reliability of scientific evidence are increasingly common. Where DNA is concerned, this distrust has been most often associated with problems in forensic laboratories such as inconsistent quality standards, cross-contamination, sample mix-ups and even the falsification of results. Yet, the recent emphasis on the scientific analysis of low quantity DNA samples — referred to, variably, as degraded, low copy number (LCN) or trace DNA — has reoriented theoretical and analytical attention to the ‘visual’ as the privileged source of knowledge to discriminate these otherwise undetectable ‘non-conformities’. Paradoxically, the uncertainty rendered through the visual profile emerges as a result of the technological innovation purporting to improve results by increasing sensitivity and detection. This study traces uncertainty as it is exemplified through ambiguous visual constructs produced in the forensic laboratory, the translation into statistical probabilities, and the subsequent controversies such imagery has provoked in legal domains.
CoyleI. R., FieldD., and WenderothP.2009. Pattern recognition and forensic identification: The presumption of scientific accuracy and other falsehoods.Criminal Law Journal33: 214–226.
6.
DaeidN., ed.2010. Fifty years of forensic science. UK: Wiley–Blackwell.
7.
DastonL., and GalisonP.1992. The image of objectivity. Representations40: 81–128.
8.
EdmondGary, ed.2004. Expertise in Regulation and Law. England: Aldershot.
9.
FindlayM., and GrixJ.2003. Challenging forensic evidence? Observations on the use of DNA in criminal trials. Current Issues in Criminal Justice14(3): 269–282.
10.
FrumkinD., WasserstromA., DavidsonA. and ArianeG.2010. Authentification of forensic DNA samples. Forensic Science International4: 95–103.
11.
GerlachN., ed.2004. The genetic imaginary: DNA in the Canadian criminal justice system. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
12.
GillP.2004. An assessment of whether SNPs will replace STRs in national DNA databases. Science and Justice44(1): 51–53.
13.
GillP.2008. LCN DNA: Proof beyond a reasonable doubt?Nature Review Genetics9(726).
14.
GillP, BrownR., FairleyM., LeeL., SmythM., SimpsonN., IrwinB., DunlopJ., GreenhalghM., WayK., WestacottE., FergusonJ., FordL., ClaytonT., & GuinessJ.2008. National recommendations of the technical UK DNA working group on mixture interpretation for the NDNAD and for court going purposes. Forensic Science International Genetics2(1): 76–82.
15.
GriffithG., and RothL.2006. DNA evidence, wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals, edited by R. S. NSW Parliamentary Library, Briefing Paper, No 11/06.Sydney: NSW Parliament.
16.
GunasekeraR., HaschkeJ., & CostasE.2010. The judicial use of DNA evidence and forensic expert testimony in the criminal justice system. Journal of Forensic Research — open access1: 104.
17.
HackingI.1975. The emergence of probability: A philosophical study of early ideas about probability, induction and statistical inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
HindmarshR., and PrainsackB., ed.2010. Genetic suspects: Global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
HorsmanK., BeinvenueJ., BlasierK., and LandersB.2007. Forensic DNA analysis of microfluidic devices: A review. Journal of Forensic Science52(4): 784–99.
20.
JasanoffS.1998. The Eye of Everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson Trial. Social Studies of Science28(5–6): 713–740.
21.
JasanoffS.2004. DNA's identity crisis. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, edited by LazerD.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
22.
JoblingM., and GillP.2004. Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis. Nature Reviews: Genetics5: 739–51.
23.
KayeD.2010. The double helix and the law of evidence. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
LatourB.1985. Visualisation and cognition: Drawing things together. Ed. KuklickH.Knowledge and Society Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present, 1–40. Jai Press Vol 6.
26.
LatourB.1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusettes: Harvard University Press.
27.
LatourB., and WoolgarS.1979. Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
LindleyD.2000. The philosophy of statistics.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society49(3): 293–337.
29.
LynchM.2003. God's signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour27(2): 93–97.
30.
LynchM.1985. Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science15: 37–66.
31.
LynchM.1991. Pictures of nothing? Visual construals in social theory. Sociological Theory9(1): 1–21.
32.
LynchM., ColeS., McNallyR., & JordanK.2008. Truth machine: The contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
LynchM., and WoolgarS., ed.1990. Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
MurphyE.2009. The art in the science of DNA: A layperson's guide to the subjectivity inherent in DNA typing. Emory Law Journal489: 501–08.
37.
NFSTC (National Forensic Science Technology Centre). 2011. DNA Analyst Training. Available online at: http://www.nfstc.org/.
38.
PinchT.1985. Toward an analysis of scientific observations: The extremality of evidential significance of observational reports in physics. Social Studies of Science15: 3–37.
39.
SavageL.1977. The shifting foundations of statistics. In Logic, laws, and life: Some philosophical complications, edited by ColodnyR.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
40.
ShapiroB.1991. ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘probable cause’: Historical perspectives on the Anglo-American law of evidence. Los Angeles: CA: University of California Press.
41.
ThompsonW., FordS., DoomT., RaymerM., and KraneD.2003. How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Science48(1): 1–19.
42.
ThompsonW.2006. Tarnish on the ‘gold standard’: Recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion30(1): 10–16.
43.
ThompsonW.2008. The potential for error in forensic DNA testing (and how that complicates the use of DNA databases for criminal identification). Paper produced for the Council of Responsible Genetics (CRG) at the conference Forensic DNA Databases and Race: Issues, Abuses and Actions. Available online at www.gene-watch.org.
44.
Van OorschotR., BallantyneK., and MitchellR.2010. Forensic trace DNA: A review. Investigative Genetics1–17.
45.
ZbilutJ., and GiulianiA.2008. Biological uncertainty. Theory in Biosciences127(3): 223–227.
