BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Complex DNA profile interpretation: stories from across the pond -
  Norah Rudin ()
DTSTART:20161108T153000Z
DTEND:20161108T161500Z
UID:TALK68871@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:INI IT
DESCRIPTION:<b>A story of samples and statistics: The history of a forensi
 c sample\, the history and current state of forensic DNA interpretation an
 d statistics in the U.S.</b>  <br><span><br>With the continued increase in
  the sensitivity of DNA testing systems comes a commensurate increase in t
 he complexity of the profiles generated. Numerous sophisticated statistica
 l tools intended to provide an appropriate weight of evidence for these ch
 allenging samples have emerged over the last several years.&nbsp\; While i
 t seems clear that only a likelihood ratio-based probabilistic genotyping 
 approach is appropriate to address the ambiguity inherent in these complex
  samples\, the relative merits of the different approaches are still being
  investigated. </span>  The first part of this talk will address the gener
 ation of DNA samples from a forensic science perspective.&nbsp\; Long befo
 re the statistical weight of evidence is considered\, numerous decision po
 ints determine what samples are collected\, what samples are tested\, how 
 they are tested and what questions are asked of them.&nbsp\; It is critica
 l to understand the sample history and the milieu in which their journey t
 akes place on their way to becoming profiles that require interpretation a
 nd statistical assessment.  We will then summarize the history of approach
 es typically used by working analysts in the US\, and discuss the current 
 state of the practice. In 2005 and 2013\, NIST distributed sets of mixture
 s to working laboratories and collected their interpretations and statisti
 cal weights. They found a wide range of variation both within and between 
 laboratories in calculating the weight of evidence for the same sample in 
 both surveys. &nbsp\;Most disturbing was the continued use of simplistic t
 ools\, such as the CPI/CPE (RMNE)\, long considered inadequate for specifi
 c types of profiles. A number of publications and reports over the last 15
  years have commented on the interpretation and statistical weighting of f
 orensic DNA profiles. These include the ISFG commission papers of 2006 and
  2012\, the NAS 2009 report\, the 2010 SWGDAM STR interpretation guideline
 s\, and the 2015 SWGDAM probabilistic genotyping software validation guide
 lines. Several high profiles criticisms of laboratory protocols (e.g. Wash
 ington D.C. and the TX laboratory system) have emerged that have fueled de
 bate. Most recently\, PCAST published a report commenting on the state of 
 forensic science disciplines in the US\, including DNA. An updated draft o
 f the SWGDAM STR interpretation guidelines is currently posted for comment
 . &nbsp\;We will discuss these various publications and commentaries as ti
 me permits.
LOCATION:Seminar Room 1\, Newton Institute
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR