Serious crimes are going unsolved because Britain has failed to keep up to date with DNA technology, the founding fathers of genetic fingerprinting say.
The country has gone from “pole position to banana republic” in this area of investigation since the closure of the Forensic Science Service, according to Sir Alec Jeffreys.
Peter Gill, who worked with Sir Alec on the first demonstration of DNA profiling, was equally critical, and accused the Home Office of standing by while almost every other European country had adopted the next generation of DNA profiling tests.
Britain is using 13-year-old technology because the National
The Home Office says that techniques used in Britain are "as sensitive, if not more sensitive, than those being proposed".
A comparison of the techniques on samples from a Norwegian rape case, challenges this claim. DNA profiling works by comparing sites on DNA taken from a crime scene to the same sites on the suspect’s DNA.
The new technology has two advantages. It tests 16 DNA sites, compared with ten. It produced 20 sites where the suspect matched the sample, compared with only eight for the older system.
The first result translates to an overall match, with only a one in 450 million likelihood of this result being returned by chance — evidence that supports a prosecution.
Although the older system produced matches at some of the sites, this level of similarity could also be explained by a random person contributing to the sample.