With the power of DNA analysis to contribute to criminal investigation gradually becoming more and more clear, the requirements on forensics laboratories to perform these tests are only likely to increase from the relatively modest fraction (approximately 2.2 percent) of current workload (FTS, 22). Even at the current rate of utilization, the demand for testing is exceeding current capability. In 1997 and again in 2000, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) fielded national surveys of DNA laboratories.
The 1997 survey results, published in 2000, noted that 69 percent of publicly operated forensic crime labs across the nation reported a DNA analyses backlog of 6,800 known and unknown subject cases and 297,000 convicted offender samples. To alleviate case backlogs, 44 percent of the labs had hired additional staff, and 13 percent were contracting with private labs.
DNA identification may complement existing biometric technologies (e.g., retina and fingerprint identification) for granting access to secure systems (e.g., computers, secured areas, or weapons), identifying criminals through DNA left at crime scenes, and authenticating items such as fine art. Genetic identification will likely become more commonplace tools in kidnapping, paternity, and fraud cases. Biosensors (some genetically engineered) may also aid in detecting biological warfare threats, improving food and water quality testing, continuous health monitoring, and medical laboratory analyses. Such capabilities could fundamentally change the way health services are rendered by greatly improving disease diagnosis, understanding predispositions, and improving monitoring capabilities (Hammonds, Keith H., 1998.
The estimates of genetic relatedness based on the similarity or dissimilarity of phenotypic characters and on the changes in individual protein products of gene action are indirect assessments of changes that have taken place in nucleotide sequences of whole genomes or of individual gene representatives of a genome........
