RESUMO
In situ hybridization is the technique by which specific RNA or DNA molecules are detected in cytological preparations. Basically it involves formation of a hybrid molecule between an endogenous single-stranded RNA or DNA in the cell and a complementary single-stranded RNA or DNA probe. In its original form the probe was labeled with (3)H and the hybrid was detected by autoradiography. The first successful experiments in 1968 involved detection of the highly amplified ribosomal DNA in oocytes of the frog Xenopus, followed soon after by the reiterated "satellite DNA" in mouse and Drosophila chromosomes. Fluorescent probes were developed about ten years later.
Assuntos
Autorradiografia/história , Sondas de DNA/história , Hibridização In Situ/história , Cromossomos Politênicos/ultraestrutura , Animais , Autorradiografia/instrumentação , Autorradiografia/métodos , DNA/química , DNA/genética , DNA/ultraestrutura , Sondas de DNA/síntese química , Drosophila melanogaster/genética , Corantes Fluorescentes/síntese química , Corantes Fluorescentes/história , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Hibridização In Situ/instrumentação , Hibridização In Situ/métodos , Larva/genética , Camundongos , Oócitos/metabolismo , Oócitos/ultraestrutura , RNA/química , RNA/genética , RNA/ultraestrutura , Glândulas Salivares/metabolismo , Glândulas Salivares/ultraestrutura , Trítio/química , Xenopus laevis/genéticaRESUMO
The early history of "DNA fingerprinting" in the UK might have been different were it not for the accounts of two dramatic courtroom trials, made by the participants and the media, in the mid-1980s. But these reports, which misrepresented the importance DNA evidence had in the trials, left a strong impression on the British public and on judges on both sides of the Atlantic. These trials, widely considered to be the first "victories" for DNA fingerprinting, have been frequently cited as proof of the utility and reliability of the technique, in both the UK and beyond. But in reality, it was the threat of DNA evidence being used rather than the integrity or validity of it that resolved these cases. At that time, DNA fingerprinting was still in its infancy, an untried and untested technology.
Assuntos
Direito Penal/história , Impressões Digitais de DNA/história , Sondas de DNA/história , Medicina Legal/história , Direito Penal/legislação & jurisprudência , Impressões Digitais de DNA/normas , Bases de Dados Factuais/história , Medicina Legal/normas , História do Século XX , Humanos , Reino UnidoRESUMO
In the mid-1980s, when the first DNA profiling techniques were developed, the name DNA 'fingerprinting' was widely used. At the time, fingerprinting was a well-established forensic method, and it was rarely questioned in the courts. Fingerprint examiners were permitted to describe matching prints as evidence of individual identity, and they were not required to give probability estimates. Despite its nominal association with the older technique, DNA 'fingerprinting' went through a period of controversy, especially in the US courts. The association with fingerprinting was questioned, and experts were required to qualify their testimony with probability figures. Heated debate occurred in scientific publications and law courts about the statistical and population genetic assumptions that went into the probability calculations presented in court cases. However, by the late 1990s DNA profiling was so widely accepted that it became a basis for invidious comparison with all other forms of forensic evidence, including fingerprinting. In the past three years, the admissibility of fingerprint evidence has been challenged in several US federal and state courts. This article discusses the socio-legal and socio-technical issues that led to the inversion of credibility that characterized the intertwined history of the two techniques.
