Dear viewer, these subtitles were generated by a machine via the service Trint and therefore are (very) buggy. If you are capable, please help us to create good quality subtitles: https://c3subtitles.de/talk/910 Thanks!
And with that being said, I'd like to
introduce our next speaker for this
evening.
So she is a medical biotechnologist
with a Ph.D.
in cancer research and
she'll be talking today about extending
DNA analysis.
So please welcome.
And I. Molner.
Well, thank you for being here and.
Yeah. And for the Cannes production.
So just a quick recap.
I'm a biologist by training and
did my part in cancer research.
Now I work as a PR consultant
for health care as my day job.
And I'm
also a science communicator.
And this is seen as something
of science. Communication has nothing to
do with my day job.
And I wish to talk to you about DNA.
You've probably heard of it and
it stores our genetic information.
So it's a different kind of code than
most people here are used to.
It's made up of four bases
adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine,
which are usually abbreviated 80
GNC.
And as you can see in the image,
the adenine always finds
thymine and guanine always bind
cytosine and vice versa.
And so you have two
negative of one positive code
always.
And there's coding and non
coding DNA.
So the coding DNA is actually
genes. So everything that shows up
in your looks and the non
coding DNA is not genes.
So everything outside of your genes,
both are important.
And DNA.
You might have heard is also used as
evidence in crimes,
whereas ninety nine point nine percent
of our DNA is the same, which is a good
thing because otherwise we would all be
mutants.
0.01 percent is different
and differs from person to person.
And in 1984, Alec Jeffries
discovered DNA profiling
where he saw that he could use this 0.01
percent to
identify people.
And this is possible to compare
the DNA profile of one person
with another person and can
also be used to find relatives
for paternity issues, for example.
And often this is
referred to as DNA fingerprints.
And what this really means is checking
for short tandem repeats
or S.T. cars.
And these Astaire's are repetitive
sequences outside of
genes.
So they have nothing to do with how we
look like.
And they are many STF yars with
different lengths which are inherited.
And the pattern of these SDR
differs from person to person.
And basically, it just looks like this
that you have, for example, the repeat
CTA five times
or six times or nine times.
And the number
of the repeats is the thing that
differs.
If you look at the gene, then
this could look something like this.
And basically you just count
the number of the repeat.
So each box here represents a repeat.
Sometimes you have a similar one
and the same number and sometimes
you have different numbers.
What do you do to get a DNA fingerprint
as first that you isolate the DNA from
a crime scene or form a probe?
You amplify these S.T.
eyes and then you can separate
them by their size because the different
number of repeats generates a different
size of the amplified
sequence.
And this you do 216
S.T. Rs.
And then you get a profile that looks
something like this, which you might have
seen in a TV series already.
And what
I said was that the DNA fingerprints
don't really show how you look like.
However, in.
Because they are outside of genes.
However, as you may
remember, we have
chromosomes. And on these two
of these chromosomes are the so-called
sex chromosomes.
And these are called X and Y.
And
you can identify the X chromosomes
and the Y chromosomes by the gene
of the enamel of our tooth
enamel.
And since 2004,
we can use this to identify the
sex chromosomes of a person
because the X chromosome
gene is six paces shorter.
But this is not always accurate.
So this is how the DNA fingerprint
then looks like in the.
For the scientists.
This is an electrified program.
Basically just a measurement off the bay.
A band that you just saw.
And you can also see on the
up on the lower left, the
X chromosome peak.
And you see there is no Y chromosome
peak. So this person has two X
chromosomes.
And this is just a means of identity.
Vacation.
So it does not show
much about the person besides the sex
chromosomes where you can determine
the sex of the person.
And in two
thousand and sixteen, there was
a rape case in Freiburg
and actually rape, murder, where Maria
was found raped and murdered at the drys
arm of a river in Baton Rouge
and back.
And after a long search, they
found one here that was found
in a hedge and it was 18 centimeters
long. And it was dyed blond.
And on a surveillance
video of a tram, they
could find a person that
fit this profile of this hair style,
which led to an arrest.
This was a 17 year old
Afghan refugee.
And he confessed
that he committed the crime.
And afterwards, the police said that
would, with extended DNA analysis,
the murderer could have been found much
sooner.
But what is this extended DNA
analysis?
There is now a new law
to come in yet
to come on.
Not already here yet, but proposed
by Baaden Vuitton Bag, which is now
governed by the Green Party and
Bavaria, which is governed by
the Conservative Party.
See as you.
And they wish to draw more conclusions
from our DNA.
So they want to look at the eye color,
the hair color, the skin color
and the biological age.
And the Conservative Party
also wants to look at the biogeographical
ancestry that can be determined
from the DNA.
And this is basically just
an synonym for ethnicity.
And some may even say for race
and
the law for extended DNA
analysis is often referred to as
the DNA facial composite.
And
however, in science terms, it's called
forensic DNA, pheno typing.
And this
means that you look at genes
which could determine the looks or
other characteristics of a person
just from the DNA and
the genes.
So what do you do hear is
that you check for single nucleotide
polymorphisms or call
also called snips.
And these snips are basically just
single based mutations that you can see
here. The A and the C.
They can be everywhere in the DNA
and with genome
wide association studies or G
was you can associate
snips with the phenotype.
So some people who have a C here
would look different than people who have
an A or have a different trait.
These snips, however, do not have to be
causal.
They can just be a correlation,
a statistical correlation.
This looks like this.
In our graphic here,
if you have, for example, the same
snip here for each person,
but a different one for each person
here or for these persons,
the two first two are the same and the
third one differs.
But in the genes, you could maybe
determine from the snips,
the blond hair of this person,
the brown hair of the second person
and the red hair of the third
person or
the blue eyes of the first person,
the brown eyes of the second person
and the green eyes of the third person.
Snip analysis is basically just done
by checking
for a known sequence.
And then you have label bases
and you can check which base binds
here.
This can be done by next generation
sequencing, which is a quick form
of sequencing DNA
and a very novel technique.
And you can do multiple snip
analysis so you can check for
several snips at once.
So it's quite fast and
it just gives you a statistical
correlation of which person has
which snips
and and looks like
what. And soon
maybe we could also do a whole genome
sequencing and then check for
the bases that are mutated.
The accuracy, if you
check for the biogeographic ancestry,
if you just go for Continental ancestry,
this is about 99 percent.
So you can determine
if you're European or African
or Native American, for example.
But what you get sometimes
from the media. Twenty percent Spanish
or 20 percent Turkish.
Or something that doesn't work.
That's too complicated.
However, hair color can be determined
with an accuracy between 70 to 90
percent. So in 70 to 90 percent,
the result will be correct
eye color. The result for blue or
brown hair will be correct in
over 90 percent of the cases.
Intermediate forms will be corrected.
About 70 percent of the cases
and skin color
will be correct in
about 80 to 90 percent of
the cases to check
for this more closely.
Here are some examples from a paper by
Kaiser. I and
you can see here that for the brown
hair, this was not quite
as sure. So it was something between
brown and black.
The dark shade of the skin, however,
was determined correctly
at about 80 percent certainty.
And the brown hair, brown eyes
were also correct with over 90 percent
certainty.
For the brown hair person here,
you have about 66 percent
likelihood for brown hair.
And also,
it could have gone even black
or blond here in
the shade here was not quite as accurate.
It was 50/50.
And for brown
hair, brown eyes, it was 72
percent likelihood of accuracy.
And this
blond person here had
about 62 percent accuracy
of the blond hair.
97 percent of accuracy
for the light shade of the skin.
And also 95 percent accuracy
of the blue eyes.
So this was quite
accurate, this prediction.
And here, the red haired person
of 92 percent red hair,
however, was still skin tone.
Again, this was quite undecided.
So it was, again, 50/50.
So it's dangerous to draw a conclusion
here just because one is
higher than the other.
And also for the brown hair, brown
eyes, there was just 46 percent
certainty here.
Then you can check for the biological
age, which you can do doing
checking for the DNA methylation
patterns.
So our DNA is modified by methyl
groups and this can
be done to so-called age specific
CPG islands.
So CPG islands are just a quick
repetition between of
C and G before
a gene.
So in front of a gene and these can
regulate the expression of a gene.
So if a gene
is later brought up in your looks
and there's some
kind of looks like this that you have,
for example, an older person on the
top who has
has methylated
CBG islands in front of the genes.
However, a younger
person in the middle who doesn't have age
specific CBG
methylation and an
intermediate age for a person
with just this one methylation.
You can analyze this during
doing a chemical treatment of the DNA.
So your DNA, which has
been methylated at the site or seen
that is treated.
And then you get a change of
base. If it was an methylated.
So you can see in the lower part it
has changed to a different
base called Uracil.
And then you can sequence the DNA and see
how much it was exchanged.
The accuracy here, there is a
mean arrow, about three to five years.
But some results will have up to
20 years.
Errors and
there are some diseases
that can confound the results.
For example, cancer or anemia.
And also, it's a problem because
this is tissue specific methylation.
If you have mixed tissues.
So usually this is done from blood and
saliva.
And if you have a mixture of other
tissues, then this can be
more accurate.
So basically, what's advertised, if you
hear the term DNA facial
composite, is this facial
composite here.
But so this is probably the first
thing that people think.
However, the reality
is more something like this.
And maybe you have a little bit
the age of these persons.
And then only maybe.
And I'd like to now for you to look
around you and see how many people
fit either of these profiles.
And just to determine this for you for a
second.
And so this is
just an approximation
of the phenotype.
And as you might remember
or know, even the DNA
does not have to equal the phenotype.
So people who have black hair
in young years might have gray
hair. Now, some
people are born black.
An hour later of a different skin color.
And some people
may well have X Y chromosomes,
but are female.
And other factors
may also be.
For example, kids who have
blond hair and grow up to be dark
haired adults.
Also, hair color is
always very, very easy to change.
And purple is not in our genes.
And also mixed
ancestry.
So having ancestors from different
continents of the world is also
a problem, often with determining
the ancestry.
But they are more problems with forensic
DNA, pheno typing.
And the first thing and most important
ethical problem is the suspicion
reversal.
So the police usually
has to prove that you are guilty.
But if you're a suspect, just due to
your looks, then with
the extended DNA analysis, you will
be a non suspect person of
interest.
And so
you will be kind of connected
to the crime.
We are to the probe
without having done anything.
And now you have to prove that you're
innocent.
And Victor Taum, social
scientists from Frankfurt, he said
suspicionless seizure of persons
and then demanding proof of that person's
innocence inverts our structural
arrangement of power between
law enforcement and the individual.
So this is one of the
most important things that you see here.
With forensic DNA, pheno typing
and oftentimes
signs.
Is supposed to equal
facts and DNA is
an unbiased witness because
it's in Farlam Bill and factual
because it's based on science and
it's done by scientists.
However, you have
only an estimation about how
people could possibly look like.
And therefore, it has to be
interpreted by a human being.
And therefore, it's prone
to bias.
And one of the most important biases
here is the confirmation bias.
And I have to say that
everyone and each of us, however,
are aware. We feel we are
we are always biased.
That's how our brain works.
And our brain likes to think more
positively and
not so much negatively.
So if we anticipate an outcome,
we are more likely to prove that this
outcome is true.
If we have, we pay selective
attention to items of interest
and disregard the contradictory
information just unwillingly.
And we will have a positivity bias.
So we like to confirm what we think is
true.
And also, if we have heard something
before, we think it's more true.
It doesn't make sense.
But it's how our brain works.
But therefore, DNA is not
an unbiased witness.
And also, there's a question
of privacy here.
So the last I posit the hypothesis
is that openly visible features
determined from the DNA are not
private.
And however, here, the appearance
does not equal the statistical
correlation.
And also, if you have a real witness
who saw your features,
you have more context and
you can say, for example,
the person was fleeing the scene or
something.
Gene's on the looks and biogeographic
background will always tell us more
than we ask.
And most important maybe
is skin color.
So fair skin is much more likely
to get skin cancer or
darker skin. People have a higher risk
for heart disease.
And also
age is a factor
for many diseases.
Then I'd like to come to
the point of discrimination.
So by definition, forensic
DNA, pheno typing discriminates
people with different ethnicities.
So if you think
about it, the relevant suspect group
will always be the minority
of the people who actually live in
this area.
Because if you find the looks
of the predominant population,
this will be too large of a suspect
group and
openly discussed forensic DNA.
Phenotypes of a DNA trace
to a crime will probably
lead to more hate crimes
or add to the hate crimes that are
already in place here.
And so if deployed forensic
DNA phenotype, it needs to be
confidential and needs to avoid
stigmatization of whole subpopulations.
And therefore, the
debate here is always very
emotional because the forensic DNA
pheno typing law was proposed
after a very brutal rape case.
And the first people who demanded
forensic DNA, pheno typing were actually
right, extremism groups.
And the
new law probably would have not helped
the investigation because
the perpetrator had strikingly
dyed hair.
And that was the reason he was identified
on the surveillance video.
The outlook, actually, for
forensic DNA, pheno typing, it's
getting more accurate.
So people are trying now to determine the
body height, the body stature,
hair loss.
So if you're a bald person, the
hair structure and also the face
structure, and you can actually see
on the image approximations
of face structure based on
snip analysis.
So extend a DNA analysis,
whole uses the whole genome
wide association studies
to approximate looks.
H biogeographical ancestry
and maybe soon much more.
And it is not a means
of identification, but
approximation.
And by definition, it's discriminatory
and it will target minorities.
And since it is biased,
it can always lead into the wrong
direction.
So what can be done here?
Forensic forensic DNA, pheno typing
is to come.
There's only as a method
of F last resort when everything
else has failed.
It has to be confidential.
So there are no hate crimes due to this
investigation.
And precautions have to be done
to avoid confirmation bias
because no one and nothing
is infallible and no
one is unbiased.
And every wrongful investigation
of a suspect leaves the real perpetrator
unprosecuted.
So back to the
new law.
So the Conference
of Ministers in
of Internal Affairs in Minister
Conference supports this law
inside of the security package
and habit oil, the interior ministers
of North Irma's failure
in Ovie. He said
nobody understands why forensic
scientists can form a very
precise facial composite
from very small traces.
But our police cannot use
them.
Well, maybe now you understand.
So I'd like to thank you very
much for your attention.
And if you'd like to know more about
me, you can find me on my Web site.
And if you want to know more about
forensic DNA, pheno typing and
ethical issues with this professor,
the only car and on our Leaphart are
doing very great work on this
at the University of Vyborg.
And this is their Web site.
And I'm now open for questions.
So thank you very much for an interesting
talk, if you have any questions.
There are two microphones on each of the
aisles. And the first question from
microphone number four.
I wanted to ask how clean eventually
the DNA sample should be
to proceed with this procedure.
It probably has to be very, very clean
because I'm not quite sure
how easy you can determine
distinguished them.
I think it should be completely clean.
So if you have maybe DNA from
a rape, which is mingled with
the victim's DNA, it's difficult
to get this out.
However, if you can
control it with comparing
it with the DNA of the victim,
then maybe it can be done
a little bit more accurately.
Quester from the Internet.
Yep, the Internet wants to know what's
your opinion about using DNA
fingerprint of someone
else?
Probably key to identify persons
on a distributed ledger technology
network.
I don't know what a distributed
ledger technology network
is.
Excuse me.
Maybe you can ask this
question on my blog.
Just sent me an e-mail and we can discuss
this, using it as
identification for something I
think right now is not really feasible,
because to do it accurately, you need
someone to to do it for
you in a scientific lab under
specific circumstances.
And if you have DNA from someone
else on your fingers, maybe you
transfer this DNA and suddenly your
ID doesn't work anymore.
So this would
be what I would be thinking about this
microphone number two.
Thank you for your very good talk.
My question is, does
seems to be a great difference between
the opinion of science, how
we should use this technology and
politicians
and this kind of conflict, I
guess, could only be
fought by the scientists
against the politicians.
Is a kind of movement of
scientists who say, well, what's the
politicians say? That we should use this.
And it's so secure
and not without
any bias. Is there a movement
to say they are talking bullshit?
So this is basically what we only car and
Lippard would be saying.
They are not saying they are talking
bullshit because they're raising
awareness for the problems.
And so I would never say
something like that. But, um,
if they are also scientists who propose
to use this as
as dear as help in forensic
investigations, because
a lot of us scientists, we are very
well. We we don't look at
the world as many people do.
We think of it actually as well.
This is just data and it's just an
approximation. Of course, people know
this as an approximation.
And so we would be
thinking, so if the DNA is of a blond
haired person.
Of course, that would just be paying more
attention to a blond haired person.
But if there is a brown hair person
who is, uh, very much connected
to the person in question, then you
might even pay
attention to this, even though the DNA
analysis said something else, just
because scientists are aware
that the DNA can be wrong.
I'm not saying that there are people who
also understand that the DNA
can lead us into the wrong direction,
even in the police force and everywhere.
But history has taught us that people
a lot of times tend to go
where the signs
lead them, leads them here.
And if the science has
not been as accurate at
that point, then maybe it doesn't.
Yeah.
It won't really work in this case.
Number three.
Thanks for your talk.
And I just wondered if you
create a profile on this
that features a hair color
or a skin color or eye color.
And each of the features has a
probability of something like point seven
to be correct. And you multiply those
probably to build his up, you will end
up with a much lower probability
for the whole profile to be actually
right. Something like maybe 25 or 30
percent or so.
And so I wonder whether there are
actually any ideas how this
method should be used in practice
for the police.
And on the other hand, what
value this kind of profiles
should have in court then?
Well, the value in
court, I think, is that
it's not really of value in court
because it does not identify you.
It's a value during the investigation.
So on the very beginning of starting to
look for who is
responsible for the crime.
Therefore, in the end, then you would
still have the DNA trace of the
DNA fingerprint and then you can still
compare this to
the person that you have found.
And if this doesn't match,
then this person could go free,
hopefully.
And
comparing the probabilities
here or multiplying them,
then you just
you just narrow down on something.
He will never be able to knauer down
on just two
persons and then they are
you just have to pick one or test them
both for their DNA profiles.
So I would be careful here
to just multiply the
probabilities.
You ask questions.
And if not, then a big round of applause
for a greater.