Advertisement

Error rates in forensic DNA analysis: Definition, numbers, impact and communication

  • Ate Kloosterman
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author at: Department of Human Biological Traces (HBS), Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA The Hague, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 708886666.
    Affiliations
    Department of Human Biological Traces (HBS), Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA The Hague, The Netherlands

    Department of Science, Interdisciplinary Research, Statistics and Knowledge Management (WISK), Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA The Hague, The Netherlands

    Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for articles by this author
  • Marjan Sjerps
    Affiliations
    Department of Science, Interdisciplinary Research, Statistics and Knowledge Management (WISK), Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA The Hague, The Netherlands

    Korteweg-de Vries Institute for Mathematics, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Search for articles by this author
  • Astrid Quak
    Affiliations
    Department of Human Biological Traces (HBS), Netherlands Forensic Institute, P.O. Box 24044, 2490 AA The Hague, The Netherlands
    Search for articles by this author

      Abstract

      Forensic DNA casework is currently regarded as one of the most important types of forensic evidence, and important decisions in intelligence and justice are based on it. However, errors occasionally occur and may have very serious consequences. In other domains, error rates have been defined and published. The forensic domain is lagging behind concerning this transparency for various reasons.
      In this paper we provide definitions and observed frequencies for different types of errors at the Human Biological Traces Department of the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) over the years 2008–2012. Furthermore, we assess their actual and potential impact and describe how the NFI deals with the communication of these numbers to the legal justice system.
      We conclude that the observed relative frequency of quality failures is comparable to studies from clinical laboratories and genetic testing centres. Furthermore, this frequency is constant over the five-year study period. The most common causes of failures related to the laboratory process were contamination and human error. Most human errors could be corrected, whereas gross contamination in crime samples often resulted in irreversible consequences. Hence this type of contamination is identified as the most significant source of error. Of the known contamination incidents, most were detected by the NFI quality control system before the report was issued to the authorities, and thus did not lead to flawed decisions like false convictions. However in a very limited number of cases crucial errors were detected after the report was issued, sometimes with severe consequences. Many of these errors were made in the post-analytical phase.
      The error rates reported in this paper are useful for quality improvement and benchmarking, and contribute to an open research culture that promotes public trust. However, they are irrelevant in the context of a particular case. Here case-specific probabilities of undetected errors are needed. These should be reported, separately from the match probability, when requested by the court or when there are internal or external indications for error. It should also be made clear that there are various other issues to consider, like DNA transfer. Forensic statistical models, in particular Bayesian networks, may be useful to take the various uncertainties into account and demonstrate their effects on the evidential value of the forensic DNA results.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Forensic Science International: Genetics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Possley M.
        • Mills S.
        • McRoberts F.
        Scandal Touches Even Elite Labs: Flawed Work, Resistance to Scrutiny Seen Across U.S..
        Tribune, Chicago2004 (Oct. 21, 2004)
        • NFI
        DNA-onderzoek Zuuk.
        NFI, 2004
        • Koppen P.J.
        • van en Elffers H.
        De mythe van het DNA-bewijs.
        Advocatenblad. 2006; 86: 607-618
        • Carracedo A.
        • Schneider P.M.
        • Butler J.
        • Prinz M.
        Analysis and biostatistical interpretation of complex and low template DNA samples (editorial).
        Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 2012; 6 (Epub 2012 Sep 19): 677-678https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2012.08.010
        • Thompson W.C.
        The potential for error in forensic DNA testing (and how that complicates the use of DNA databases for criminal identification).
        Gene Watch. 2008; 21
        • Lynch M.
        • Cole S.
        • McNally R.
        • Jordan K.
        Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting.
        University of Chicago Press, Chicago2008
        • Lynch M.
        Science, truth, and forensic cultures: the exceptional legal status of DNA evidence.
        Stud. History Philos. Biol. Biomed. Sci. 2013; 44: 60-70
      1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

        • Koehler J.J.
        Error and exaggeration in the presentation of DNA evidence.
        Jurimetrics. 1993; 34: 21-39
        • Thompson W.C.
        Subjective interpretation, laboratory error and the value of forensic DNA evidence: three case studies.
        Genetica. 1995; 96: 153-168
        • Thompson W.C.
        • Taroni F.
        • Aitken C.G.G.
        How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2003; 48: 47-54
        • Saks M.J.
        • Koehler J.J.
        The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence.
        Vanderbilt Law Rev. 2008; 61: 199-219
        • Schiffer B.
        The Relationship between Forensic Science and Judicial Error: A Study Covering Error Sources, Bias, and Remedies.
        (PhD thesis) University of Lausanne, 2009
        • National Research Council
        DNA Technology in Forensic Science.
        National Academy Press, Washington, DC1992: 88-89
        • National Research Council
        The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence.
        National Academy Press, Washington, DC1996 (Chapter 3)
        • National Research Council
        Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.
        National Academy Press, Washington, DC2009
        • Lapworth R.
        • Teal T.K.
        Laboratory blunders revisited.
        Ann. Clin. Biochem. 1994; 31: 78-84
        • O’Kane M.
        The reporting, classification and grading of quality failures in the medical laboratory.
        Clin. Chim. Acta. 2009; 404: 28-31
        • Kindt I.
        • Huijgen R.
        • Boekel M.
        • van der Gaag K.J.
        • Defesche J.C.
        • Kastelein J.P.J.
        • de Knijff P.
        Quality assessment of the genetic test for familial hypercholesterolemia in The Netherlands.
        Cholesterol. 2013; https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/531658
        • Budowle B.
        • Bottrel M.C.
        • Bunch S.G.
        • Fram R.
        • Harrison D.
        • Meagher S.
        • Oien C.T.
        • Peterson P.E.
        • Seiger D.P.
        • Smith M.B.
        • Smrz M.A.
        • Soltis G.L.
        • Stacey R.B.
        A perspective on errors, bias, and interpretation in the forensic sciences and direction for continuing advancement.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2009; 54: 798-809
        • Ansell R.
        Internal quality control in forensic DNA analysis.
        Accred. Qual. Assur. 2013; 18: 279-289
        • Mnookin J.L.
        • Cole S.A.
        • Dror I.E.
        • Fisher B.A.J.
        • Houck M.M.
        • Inman K.
        • Kaye D.H.
        • Koehler J.J.
        • Langenburg G.
        • Risinger M.D.
        • Rudin N.
        • Siegel J.
        • Stoney D.A.
        The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences.
        UCLA Law Rev. 2011; 58: 725-779
        • Westen A.A.
        • Nagel J.H.
        • Benschop C.C.
        • Weiler N.E.
        • de Jong B.J.
        • Sijen T.
        Higher capillary electrophoresis injection settings as an efficient approach to increase the sensitivity of STR typing.
        J. Forensic Sci. 2009; 54: 591-598
        • Harmon R.
        • Budowle B.
        Questions about forensic science.
        Science. 2006; 311: p607
        • Balding D.J.
        Error and misunderstandings in the second NRC report.
        Jurimetrics. 1997; 37: 469-476
        • Meulenbroek A.J.
        De Essenties van forensisch biologisch onderzoek; Humane biologische sporen en DNA.
        Zutphen, Paris2009
        • Meulenbroek A.J.
        Leidraad en praktische handvatten voor de jurist bij het doorgronden van conclusies forensisch DNA-onderzoek.
        Expertise en Recht. 2011; 3: 73-90
        • van der Beek C.P.
        • Kloosterman A.D.
        • Sjerps M.J.
        De detectie van vals positieve en de preventie van vals negatieve matches bij grootschalige DNA-databankvergelijkingen.
        Expertise en Recht. 2011; 6: 219-221
        • Balding D.J.J.
        Weight-of-Evidence for Forensic DNA Profiles.
        John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Chichester2005
        • Taroni F.
        • Aitken C.G.G.
        • Garbolino P.
        • Biedermann A.
        Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science.
        Wiley, Chichester2006
        • Fenton N.E.
        • Neil M.
        • Hsu A.
        Calculating and understanding the value of any type of match evidence when there are potential testing errors.
        Artif. Intell. Law. 2014; 22: 1-28
        • Le Q.A.
        • Strylewicz G.
        • Doctor J.N.
        Detecting blood laboratory errors using a Bayesian network: an evaluation on liver enzyme tests.
        Med. Decis. Making. 2011; 31: 325-337
        • Plebani M.
        • Carraro P.
        Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency.
        Clin. Chem. 1997; 43: 1348-1351
        • Stahl M.
        • Lund E.D.
        • Brandslund I.
        Reasons for a laboratory's inability to report results for requested analytical tests.
        Clin. Chem. 1998; 44: 2195-2197
        • Hofgärtner W.T.
        • Tait J.F.
        Frequency of problems during clinical molecular-genetic testing.
        Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 1999; 112: 14-21
        • Carraro P.
        • Plebani M.
        Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later.
        Clin. Chem. 2007; 53: 1338-1342