Maybe in the future, but a DNA test at the moment sends off a mouth swab (or clutch of hairs, guess which one most people volunteer for) off the Birmingham where it is subject to chemical tests and basically a big barcode is produced. The sample itself doesn't survive the testing.
Is not a full blown genetic profile to the point of a full genome (I admit it, I'm a science buff). If it were then I presume they could in theory contact me and say that the sample i took from Joe Bloggs two weeks earlier indicate he has MS or cyctic fibrosis or Huntingtons and we could contact them and let them know.
(Good, bad? would you want to know without asking? - I can't answer that one).
If the samples were kept there would have to be some huge repository full of hair and gob (and a few other things too!) Don't shake hands with the librarian.
In the future though, who knows, they are getting DNA from less and less material (eg dandruff) to the point that it becomes self defeating. After all, what does it prove if one flake of your dandruff ends up near a crime scene in Virginia gardens, or Lake Windemere, both popular tourist spots. There are probably bits of every one of us trailed throughout the general routes we travel, on our cash, buses, trains, beaches, flushed INTO phpbb_the waste system, to the point that if you looked hard enough there would be a bit of me over much of London, Cambridgeshire and Norfolk (with a quick stopover in the Isle of Wight in 1994).
That's the reason that just finding DNA at a crime scene doesn't mean that much, its the context it got there that shows it as relevent.
__________________
If you don\'t like what I think, attack the opinion with Logic and reason, don\'t attack the opinion holder!
|