The Born Identity - How DNA and Genealogy is Solving Crimes | Claire Glynn | TEDxBoston

Consumer DNA testing has brought a new level of self-exploration to those who are curious about their genetic health, their ancestral origins, and even their genetic family trees. Consumers and genealogists are uncovering new DNA relatives, finding long-lost family members, and in some cases, unveiling deep family secrets. This discovery of identifying unknown people through DNA testing is akin to forensic DNA profiling in criminal investigations. Harnessing the power of consumer DNA databases to identify DNA relatives, the field of Forensic Genetic Genealogy has recently emerged as a powerful new investigative tool to identify unknown perpetrators of violent crimes and to identify Jane and John Does. DNA is the blueprint of a person’s life and genealogical records are the paper trail. By combining these, cold case investigations can be cracked open by revealing a person’s born identity.
Crime, Criminal justice, Forensics, Genetics, Human origins, Science, Genealogy Claire Glynn, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Forensic Science, in the Henry C. Lee College of Criminal Justice and Forensic Sciences, at the University of New Haven, Connecticut. Claire previously was employed as a Forensic Biologist in the homicide and sexual assaults team at LGC Forensics (now Eurofins) in the United Kingdom. After obtaining a Ph.D. in Molecular Medicine, Claire joined the faculty at the University of New Haven in 2014, where she teaches courses and conducts extensive research focused on forensic biology, forensic DNA analysis, and forensic genetic genealogy. Claire is the founding Director of the online Graduate Certificate in Forensic Genetic Genealogy at the University of New Haven, which is the first program of its kind, and she actively consults and provides subject matter expertise on the topic to law enforcement agencies in the United States and internationally. This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at www.ted.com/tedx

[@Amanda_The_American_Mom]

Genetic genealogy is so interesting I am so fascinated by this. Imagine the secrets this could possibly uncover and the murders that it will solve. Amazing

[@fivecentpsychiatry3447]

This is so fascinating

[@jamiesaari]

Thank you, Kashif, for all you are doing to transform the future of personalized health. A proud Canadian in Colorado, I just ordered a kit for myself. I believe the results will be the beginning of a life I always dreamed I could live.

[@MarloweDash]

I hate ted talks. So fluffy and self satisfied. Weird club. Just googled ‘why do i hate ted talks’ and found out I’m not alone!!! Wheeet whoooo.

[@liyangajay8621]

And you watch a Ted talk and comment that lol

[@Dr.anonymous-k3m]

After researching the different applications of gene editing, xenotransplantation and crime solving technologies that are arising from advances in technology, I couldn’t help but notice that most of the developments in these technologies is hindered by the unknown of their potential harmful consequences. For instance, we learned only when there was no viable option that bovine heart transplants could be an actual option for saving the life of a human. This would have never been possible without having the actual case study proof, a scenario that appears to be very rare in reality. In retrospect, I feel that it is obvious that this technology will be great in the future. But to know this there had to be some risk taken. This risk was only found to be appropriate in the right circumstances in that there was no other option. We apply this principle not only to gene editing and other research treatments, but as a general principle to testing out new ways of doing things. We as humans and scientists do not want to be held accountable for a case of non-malfeasance. But what if we are doing harm through inaction? What if we are causing the death of millions of people or letting serial killers run wild just because we hold off on experiments due to the nature of the unknown consequences. I do not believe that all regards to non-malfeasance be tossed out, but that we should perhaps be tipping the scales a little more towards the side of our leading experts educated guesses. What if we allowed the researchers to progress xenotransplantation in willing human patients instead of wasting $500,000 per transplant procedures specific to baboons? I believe that sometimes beating around the bush can become counterproductive and cause harm due to inaction while millions of people on the heart transplant list die. Airing on the side of caution is always a safe bet in that it prevents any bad to be produced from human behavior, but perhaps some risk and potential bad outcomes could be warrented when weight of the harm caused by nature on the human heart. As a last thought, these cases have made me ponder what an absolute zero risk tolerance for causing harm is a fair place to draw a line in the sand when the cause of inaction will allow for harm from the natural world to take the lives of millions while we sit by as “perfect humans” without any risk of flaw in our action.

[@gaylecoleman8567]

Working backwards, I saw a good documentary in her

[@MarloweDash]

There is a clicking sound as she talks and moves that is unfortunate.

[@CatDaddySteve]

Good for crime....& ....Legal paternity ,but seless for family because they all don't give a dam about you.