"Laboratory methods and statistical analysiswill continue to improve. That notwithstanding, nodata base will ever be perfect," Bieber says. "Itwould be regrettable not to use the technologyavailable when there is so much at stake both forthe falsely accused and victims, as well as inother civil cases."
Hartl says today that he also supports the"ceiling" as a temporary solution. But also hecriticized those scientists who are satisfied withit as a permanent standard.
Andrew Silverman, staff counsel at the StatePublic Defenders' Office, also has reservationsabout using gene typing methods. While he admitsthat DNA typing has proved to be useful in court,he expresses concerns about the reliability of theevidence and the often enormous weight attached toit.
"Sometimes, the attacker's identity is the onlyissue disputed, so DNA typing can be the ultimateevidence," Silverman says. "But, a [DNA] matchcan't establish consent or even penetration [inrape cases]."
Silverman cautions against the use of the term"DNA fingerprinting" as opposed to "DNA typing."He says that though DNA may differentiate eachperson just as fingerprints do, the typing onlycompares certain genes which may not vary toomuch.
Massachusetts determines the admissibility ofscientific evidence by asking whether a given testis generally accepted by the relevant scientificcommunity. And Congress is currently debating abill which would create guidelines for thetechnique.
As of today, Silverman contends that DNA typingdoes not fit this criteria, and admission of DNAevidence must continue to be judged on a case bycase basis.
"Unfortunately, this may be an instance whenthe court rushed to welcome technology withoutchecking [its] adaptation in the criminal justicearena," said Silverman.
But some scientists view protests such asHartl's as unnecessary. David H. Bing, thescientific director of CDR Laboratories, a privatefirm which handles approximately 200 cases peryear involving genetic evidence analysis, saysthat scientists must find a middle ground in theDNA typing debate.
Eighty percent of his company's clients, Bingsays, represent the prosecution, with theremaining 20 percent representing the defense. Feerange between $5000 and $50,000 per case.
"There are always people who don't like thetest and then there are people on the otherextreme," says Bing. "We in the scientificcommunity are moving toward a consensus."