DNA数据库搜索争议。

The DNA database search controversy.

作者信息

Balding David J

机构信息

Department of Applied Statistics, University of Reading, UK.

出版信息

Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):241-4. doi: 10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00241.x.

DOI:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00241.x

PMID:11890322

Abstract

A recent article in Biometrics (Stockmarr, 1999, 55, 671-677) has generated correspondence (56, 1274-1277; 57, 976-980) reigniting a controversy started by a 1996 report on DNA profile evidence issued by the U.S. National Research Council (NRC). The issue concerns the evidential weight of a DNA profile match when the match results from a search through a profile database. The views of both Stockmarr and the NRC report conflict with those of many statisticians working in the area, and the differing viewpoints lead to dramatically different assessments of evidence. I outline reasons why Stockmarr and the NRC report are wrong. I also briefly discuss possible reasons why forensic applications tend to be problematic for statisticians.

摘要

《生物统计学》（斯托克马尔，1999年，第55卷，第671 - 677页）近期发表的一篇文章引发了一系列通信（第56卷，第1274 - 1277页；第57卷，第976 - 980页），重新点燃了一场由美国国家研究委员会（NRC）1996年发布的一份关于DNA图谱证据的报告所引发的争议。该问题涉及通过图谱数据库搜索得到匹配结果时，DNA图谱匹配的证据权重。斯托克马尔和NRC报告的观点与该领域许多统计学家的观点相冲突，而这些不同观点导致了对证据的评估存在巨大差异。我概述了斯托克马尔和NRC报告错误的原因。我还简要讨论了为何法医应用对统计学家来说往往存在问题的可能原因。