• GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 hour ago

    dude: I want a divorce, your honor.

    judge: on what grounds?

    dude: on account that my wife fucked my dead brother and had a child with him.

    judge: is this true?

    woman: 1000003843

  • heavy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    5 hours ago

    To add that the general understanding of how DNA works and is used can be scary, just like other measurements. I bet there’s still a lot of people that believe fingerprint analysis is some kind of rock solid science based evidence, but my understanding is that it’s very much prone to errors and interpretation.

    I don’t mean to say that DNA analysis suffers the same flaws, just trying to illustrate with an example.

    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      I hate the generalized concept of “AI”, but I love the concept of “Machine Learning”

      If you think LLMs are good at anything, I am almost 100% certain to disagree with you about pretty much everything, to help you understand this distinction.

      Anyhow, some computer scientists found that a machine learning algorithm could predict beyond a null hypothesis that A fingerprint belonged to a person given a different fingerprint (different finger but still same person)

      “Criminology” expers were just like “no, it’s settled science”

      This is the state of discourse.

      1. why do I even feel the compulsion to preface by saying my bit about ai and llms?

      2. how tf is “settled science” even a concept in a science

      • ericwdhs@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        If you think LLMs are good at anything, I am almost 100% certain to disagree with you about pretty much everything, to help you understand this distinction.

        Depends on what you mean by “anything.” The current obsession in the tech world of trying to shove LLMs into the AGI box? Yeah, not a good fit. Pure language stuff like translation or brainstorming? Very useful. LLMs now even surpass DeepL.

        why do I even feel the compulsion to preface by saying my bit about ai and llms?

        I have a similar compulsion to clarify that my interest in LLMs centers mainly around local open-source models that can run on consumer hardware.

      • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I get a similar vibe from psychology. There’s a number of “experts” that are out in the field, doing the hard work day after day, putting in those hours… And hopelessly blinded by their own confirmation bias and survivorship bias. Clinical therapists in surveys prove very willing to overlook strong research in support of certain methods because they believe they see results in their clinical work that can’t be reproduced in a lab.

        Then each field also has a research wing, slowly carving a path towards useful ideas, expending tremendous effort for each new finding, method, and result (even negative results!).

    • sudochown@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Same with bite mark analysis, polygraph, and bullet/gun rifling matching. CSI, Law and Order, etc. all have convinced people these things are just the pinnacle of evidence.

  • bedwyr@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    7 hours ago

    There was a woman who went to prison for this, her chimera baby’s dna contradicted her story, I think to get public assistance of some kind, and the dna test convinced the state assholes she was lying and they sent her to prison, I think some researchers exonerated her eventually.

    • Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Are you thinking of Lydia Fairchild? In her case she wasn’t sent to prison. However, her two children were taken from her and placed in foster care. Lawyers had refused to represent her at first, due to the belief that DNA evidence is too strong to fight. On the plus side, she became pregnant again. So a court officer was present during her third child’s birth.

      Despite being at the birth and witnessing blood draws from both mother and child, the court still claimed she was being untruthful somehow. Thankfully, that birth and its evidence were peculiar enough to attract a lawyer to finally represent her. Only after that did the investigation into potential chimerism arise.

      More info here - https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002

      • WiredBrain@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        43
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Because they don’t know the limits of their tools and were convinced they’re infallible, and as a result an innocent woman was punished by the state. Just a guess.

  • 🍉 DrRedOctopus 🐙🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    ·
    9 hours ago

    I think there was a similar case, but about the mother. The courts took her baby and she was on trial for kidnapping.

    Eventually a geneticists saw it on the news and suggested she got tested again using DNA samples from other parts of her body and they found out she also was a chimera.

    Some racism was involved as she was working class and black, so the courts were just looking for a reason to take her baby and throw her ass in jail…

    • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 hours ago

      You’d think they’d change DNA test methodologies so this sort of thing doesn’t happen again

    • dkppunk@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      8 hours ago

      I remember that one, it was the first time I heard of this scenario. It really sucks for folks involved, but it is kind of interesting too.

  • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    Another fun-ish, kinda fucked up, weird story… There’s a woman, Henrietta Lacks, who had a biopsy for her cervical cancer in January of 1951 before passing in October of that year. These cells were found to be incredibly resilient and quick to replicate. Most cells only lasted a few days before dying, but hers seemed to be functionally immortal under controlled lab conditions.

    So, unbeknownst to her as consent wasnt required for such things at the time, her cancer cells were cultured and grown into large samples to be used in research. Those samples were split off and passed off to other labs. They’ve since spread around the entire world for a ton of research and commercial purposes.

    They were used in the development of the polio vaccine, for example, as well as having been used in research on cancer (obviously), AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic materials, gene mapping, etc. They are used to test safety of cosmetics as well. Approximately 11,000 patents involve these specific cancer cells.

    In the 1970s, there was an incident where these cells contaminated other cell cultures, so the researchers needed DNA samples from the Henrietta’s family to differentiate her cells from the others. This is the first time anyone in her family learned that her cells had been used in research at all, let alone that her cells were being cloned and used in research and commercial product development across the entire world. It became a legal issue after this, and after a couple decades of litigation, it made it to the Supreme Court of California where they ruled that “discarded biological materials” is no longer ones property and could be commercialized freely. They continue to occasionally fight against aspects of her cells’ usage, and there are health privacy concerns for her family as well, but results have been mixed for them.

    Henrietta the person died in 1951 at age 31, but her immortal cancer cells which still contain her full DNA sequence continue to live to this day, 75 years later. One source claims that as much as 50 million metric tons of tissue has been generated from these cells.

    • mycodesucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      5 hours ago

      HeLa is extremely interesting, but still requires humans to cultivate her cells.

      Canine transmissible venereal tumor however, is an immortal, contagious dog tumor from a dog thousands of years ago that evolved into its own lifeform - a sexually transmitted parasitic cancer - that has continued to this day to spread from host to host. Yet, genetically, it is still “dog”.

      Anyway, this is my answer when the job interviewer asks me about long-term goals.

    • A Wild Mimic appears!@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I worked with HeLa cells as a molecular biology student. The ethics weren’t a great look, and I’m happy that today there has to be informed consent for stuff like that.

      Without having an immortalized cell line like this genetics would have taken even longer to get going tho, and she’s actually one of the few people whose genes will be preserved for near eternity. Creepy, but it’s closer to actual immortality than any of us will ever be.

    • 14th_cylon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 hours ago

      In the 1970s, there was an incident where these cells contaminated other cell cultures, so the researchers needed DNA samples from the Henrietta’s family to differentiate her cells from the others.

      I don’t understand. First, what was the point? I doubt there was a way to split the sample attacked by a cancer cells, they probably weren’t going to recalibrate the transporter and untuvix them.

      Second, weren’t there thousands of the copies of the sample? Why wouldn’t they compare it to one of them, instead of bothering the family?

  • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    144
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Apparently this is more common with cats. If you see a cat with two different coat patterns, either divided down the middle or along the neck (as if they only had spare parts left at the cat factory), they may also be a chimera.

    • LurkingLuddite@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      9 hours ago

      Half and half chimera is just the more unique variant, iirc, at least for humans. The more common type would just look splotchy if the different parts even happen to color differently. The patterns usually follow Blaschko’s lines but don’t have to.

      There are also more basic forms where people will just have certain body parts with different DNA, like an extra blood type or other less consequential things.

    • very_well_lost@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I wonder… is this more common in all animals that have average litter size >= 2? Or is there something else special to cats that explains this phenomenon?

      • Derpenheim@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        9 hours ago

        In-utero growth rate + chromosome counts play a big role. I admit, ashamedly, that I have largely forgotten the reason they matter, but they do.

        Source, trust me bro

  • sanbdra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Biology really said “plot twist” and rewrote the whole family tree. This is wild and fascinating at the same time.