Transcripts For CSPAN Forensic 20131130

These documents all seek with rights. The rights of crossexamination. The right to be confronted. The right until tonight. We produced of the witnesses in court i learning about the opportunity to crossexamine. All but one. The most devastating witness against my client is not a human being. It is a machine. A computer log of the enterprise. Let me as of this courts adjourn. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] i am done. [applause] we have time for one or two questions. I think im going to take one of them. Justice scalias opinion in sharpnd versus king, a instrument or blunt instrument . Questions other than rhetorical. After this you have a break which is probably why there are no questions. You are on break back here at 10 30 a. M. We get back here in about 30 minutes or so. See you here at 10 30. All right. I declare the presence of a quorum. In our next speaker, this is going to move from the Supreme Court to the brain. We think there is a correlation there. Theyre going to be talking neuroscience and what science can tell us about Human Behavior in the ways that may be relevant. Is this on now . And honor to be here with you today. And to have an opportunity to talk to you about Behavioral Sciences are impacting the legal system. This morning you heard about the extraordinary roles of dna, inlysis of bones are playing identifying individuals and identifying criminals in order to cause crime. Im going to shift our focus a little bit to talk about what Behavioral Sciences tell us about why a person has committed a crime. Or not an improved understanding of why people theit crimes or contributions to Human Behavior should impact how we think about responsibilities for criminal conduct and the punishment for criminal conduct. Of all of the risk factors that are most notable for the development of antisocial personality disorder that have a new mode in basis, what is the most predictive seizure is . B y chromosome. B y chromosome. Being a male. Is as a significant biological disadvantage. That this might be part of the explanation to us. What youre looking at here is this. Gene that happens to appear on the x chromosome. It turns out that it is an lot of ourene and a behavior. Why is that . And a lot of our behavior. Why is that . This is essential as an enzyme for the regulation of a lot of neurotransmitters in your brain. Those include things like serotonin, dopamine. They are essential to our happiness, dispositions, ability to control our impulses. It turns out that men are not only a sick to begin to biological disadvantage by the fact that they are man significant biological this advantage by the fact that they are man but it is more likely to appear more likely and the low producing forms and men. Whichis a variation regulates how much is expressed in the body. Because of this, men are more likely to have a lower amount explain which may help some of the differences and the increasing criminality. This is a theory. It is not proven. It has an interesting support. Some researchers published a remarkable study in 2002. The remarkable study showed the first of its kind gene environment interaction. It is not all nature. It is also nurture. Of thebination interaction between the two has never been shown before this study which conclusively show there is an interaction. What you are looking at here is two different lines. Is thisre what you see gray is high. We are looking a antisocial personality. Theres not a huge amount of difference between the low and high activity. There is some difference between the two but not much. You see there is a big difference over here. What is that difference . Nd look at aake a cohort of individuals. This group looked at boys over a 20 year time frame, whether they have been subject to sexual abuse or physical abuse in childhood and the presence or absence of the low form or high form of mono antioxidants. Low and had severe childhood mistreatment that there was a significant, four likelihood that you would be an antisocial individual adults. How do they define antisocial personality . The likelihood of committing either violent offenses or property offenses over time. Is remarkable and interesting. We can actually see that there environmentalnd specific contribution to a particular personality. Even if you do not have the childhood maltreatment, there are still a difference. Member use at gang of weapons. On the left is high activity and on the right is low. There is a big difference between the white bar on the left and right. What is the difference . The likelihood of using a weapon. Memberse cohort of gang they were significantly more likely shes a weapon than those who had high which is a normal phenotype to use a weapon than those who have high which is a normal phenotype. Likely. More the mere presence of the gene matters. Why does this matter to us . It has implications for how we think about individuals who might commit crimes. This is just an example. It is one example of the growing field of behavioral and euros science which looks to genetic andhe biological contributions to behavior. Thingss out these two are quite related. In many criminal trials across countries and in pretrial negotiations, criminal defendants are coming in and saying do not blame me, blame my genes or my brain. Yourme ways, of course brain made you do it. What does that mean . What does it mean to try to say there is Something Different about your brain then your decisionmaking, processing of the information and deliberative and rational thought. Should it matter to our criminal Justice System . Looking at the increase of incidents of criminal defendants coming into the criminal court and introducing evidence about their biological or an urological predisposition to behavior. This is also about predisposition. Theres a correlation between a genetic difference and an agical difference neurological difference. The curves that you see there is what it would look at if it was an exponential increase. 2005, 2006, 2007 there are about 100 cases. Most of your recent year is 300 cases. The most recent year is 300 cases. Defendant coming into a courtroom and using evidence from behavioral genetics from neuroscience to decrease the responsibility or punishment for a crime. That is a tiny subset of the world. 10 of criminal cases only make it to trial. Only 1 ever make it to appeal. The number of them that actually discussed the neurological evidence is even smaller. They will not tell me what the inclusion price is. Talk to Defense Attorneys the more they tell me thisin the pretrial phase evidence is being used to try to plea for a lesser offense or punishment. Having an increased role. In what way . Prevalent is in cases of homicide. In Death Penalty cases this is where i first showed up. In the sentencing phase of a capital phase a criminal defendant tried to present as mitigating evidence that they should be treated less harshly because of their genetic and urological predisposition. They have less control over their behavior less culpable therefore they should not get this. If you look at this chart, you will see there are many other offense types that are on here. From felony murder to child , across thecking gamut defendants are coming into the courtroom and introducing evidence that they are a genetics or their brain helps to explain why they behaved to the way that they did. Here juste chart shows you that the majority of these cases are now becoming neurological cases. These are intricately related. The blue bar in the front is just genetic evidence. The red bar in the back is an urological evidence. Neurological evidence. What kind of claim are they making . The biggest bar is mitigation. Which makes sense. It started as a punishment theory. There are some other surprising features which i will go into with some illustration of the cases. In competency cases it is showing up all the time. In challenges to the mental state of the individuals there are claims about whether or not the person had the ability to have the mental state necessary to commit the crime. The gamut. S it is not just a punishment theory anymore. That is where i want to start. I just started by criminal law class this past week. The first day of criminal law what i always do is have a conversation with students about why do we punish criminals. We hold people accountable for their actions . Is it just an eye for an eye . Is it retreated. . Base theirerrent to he . Are we doing it for the utilities of society to safeguard individuals . It trying to reintegrate people into societies . Our answersrs are coming from neuroscience. How we answer why we punish should help us determine what the role this evidence should play in the criminal Justice System. Thereeath penalty case was a criminal defendant who came in and he said the reason i acted the way that i did was because of a serotonin deficiency that i had. That is the respective and the homicide. That is a true jewel to my genetic predisposition. Attribute a bowl to my genetic predisposition. He said after my arrest, this was discovered. I started prescription medication. My behavior change. My behavior changed so much that the Death Penalty was not warranted because my aggressive behavior was genetic. It is now treated. It is a treatable condition. I am not the worst of the worst kind of criminal offenders. Retributive theory it is based on the moral culpability of the offender. If they person has less control are they less morally culpable . Is there a current value and executing executing them . Is a question that is showing up repeatedly in quite a few cases. Quite a few were ineffective. The answer seems to be at least from the Supreme Court that failing to investigate in urological basis for a persons behavior does constitute an effective counsel. No investigation for a persons behavior in many cases that constitutes this counsel. Not sure if it is this cumulative. They tried to show that the person was had some Mental Health component to their behavior. A complete failure seems to be problematic. Say thisright to evidence is mitigated . If a defendant comes in and says i cannot control my behavior, i cannot stop myself from killing people or from committing crimes , is that a sympathetic claim . Going to think then you should go back on the street . Probably not. Is welly question before we have an answer. In this case they refuse to cooperate with the introduction of mitigating this on their capital sentencing phase of the trial. Later after refusing, he says i an assistance to counsel because they did not present any mitigating evidence on my behalf. You do not let them. It goes up to the ninth circuit. I would have cooperative. My father was violent. My grandfather was violent. There is a heritable basis for the violence in our family. Said we thinkuit it is probably pretty unlikely that if the jury had heard a violenthat he was killer whos genetically programmed to be violent from the fact that he comes from a long line of violent killers that it would be all that compelling. United state the Supreme Court. Is this mitigating . What is this . The court did not have to resolve that question in this case. It inere able to resolve the other issue. Can he voluntarily waive your rights . Yes. He loses. He did say we are not sure it would be all that helpful. It turns out that they could have picked up on this. There are cases where the issue is civil commitment. Is there a biological basis that makes it likely they will do the bases for and definitely committing a person . Some of the evidence theyre introducing at trial is now showing up in the basis. Is it aggravating . It is hard to know. The theory seems to be based on this idea that our genetics and neurological predispositions rob us of free will. By were to ask you to raise your right hand, many of you might be able to do so. Many might refuse. Use that example . You have the capability of deciding to engage in simple action. Is it right to say that because i cant describe genetically your behavior and some of the causal contributions that you do not have the ability to make theces that seems to be theory that criminal defendants are introducing. They are saying that it is not voluntary. I am like an atomic tom. Automaton. I explained the concept. I explained the concept of involuntary nantz involuntariness. We just sleepwalking through life . That is seems to be what a lot of criminal defendants are saying. Theyre acting out of reflex or compulsion. Is a really interesting area. There is strong evidence there is a significant predisposition to becoming addicted. You have your first hit of the tog you are more likely become addictive than the next person. It makes it harder to resist afterward. Unless you actually do with one of the tests. It also look at your Family History. This is showing up a lot. The idea is the same kind of in voluntariness. I cannot voluntarily waive my it was involuntary. My brain made me do it. I cannot have the capacity to do otherwise because i hit my head in means it is not the same. Evidence shows up in the criminal courtroom. In one case, a defendant comes in. It was a genetic and neurological basis. The court says we agree he never and was unable to exercise free choice regarding drugs. We are not there would neuroscience yet. Cannot explain 100 your behavior. For theyou need to have criminal Justice System to think that you have voluntarily acted with the requisite mental states in order to be convicted of a crime . This shows up a lot. It is an interesting area where it seems to be gaining traction in court. Ordinarily i would not have a legal basis to doing so. This shows that i cannot voluntarily waive my rights. The of the problems is difference between an objective observation and neurological evidence. Normal. Introduces these are issues we are going to the perceptions of behavior. Should we care . It shows up in many cases the claims for unintentional a la intention un intentionality. This is a tough sell. This is an interesting concept. You pull aat which trigger, did you intend to pull the trigger . Is it a fully knowledgeable fractional irrational action . A lot of criminal defendants are saying it was not in my biological evidence shows this to be true. It seems to gain this. In juveniles, they are more impulsive. Part of the explanation is the frontal lobe region of the brain is not fully developed. It is essential for executive functioning, for planning, for premeditation. With many agiles there are also deficiencies in the frontal lobe. Theyre appearing in your brain. Does it matter . Does this tell us about the moments in which a person decided to pull the trigger of a gun . Us ats determinative for that moment in time . This is genotyping them. To find out if they have the ammunition they say and another , the serotonin gene, theyre going into criminal cases. Was convicted of Second Degree murder. He testified that the defendant have those serotonin levels and the capacity to control impulses was virtually nonexistent. He refuses to challenge the. Ental state theyre trying to mitigate the senate. It did not work in this case. It has worked in a lot of cases. Difference than the neurological evidence. Were taking into a place, pulling the trigger, saying di e. Were going to have to square them. Tells you the chart and how it is burying. The red bar is bad for criminal defenses. Criminalood for the defendants. Wherever you are you should see a lot of red. You should see a little bit of blue. This is around mitigation. There is some aggravation. Is that working. This is a subset of cases. In much the much more effective than pleabargaining. It may never get to trial. At least in the cases that i am looking at it is not having a huge impact. So, it is an issue that we are going to have to addressed. Addressed. In conclusion, the use of this is rapidly expanding, and we are going to have to figure out what it means for the concept of punishment. In sentencing,p but also pretrial, trial and sentencing. Ourauses us to reevaluate norms in terms of holding a person responsible and punishing them. And it is increasingly an behavior across the law. One area i would address but we can talk about in questions and this isis whether essential and civil society. It can be used to substantiate injuries. You can look at a persons brain and see if they have a headache, if they actually have pain. There have been fascinating studies that show you can cease you can senior a logical you can see neurological indicators of pain. This is evidence we are going to have to address. We have to think about the role this in criminal justice and the civil system. Thank you, and i look forward to your questions. We have time for one or two questions. Although you will get another chance and about half an hour. Questions . They are all saving them for the whole group. Off, we have a question coming. Marching down the aisle. I have no choice. Thank you for the wonderful discussion. I am an addiction psychiatrist. I do have some of these cases, and i do some talking about this as well. One of the problems in a lot of inse cases is that voluntariness, as you said, is really defined, but there is a difference between having a hard choice and having no choice. Richard bonnie first but for that distinction, and i think it is really, really useful. I wonder if you would comment on that. Exactlynk that is right. We treat it as black and white, voluntary or involuntary, not that there are shades of gray of well, it was voluntary but a harder choice. And that is because in criminal law we treat people according to the norm. We say if you are able to reach that norm, great. If you fall below it, you do so at your own peril. Are going to have to reevaluate that now that we have much better evidence that some people really cannot live by that standard. And it goes to our question about the theory of punishment. Why do we punish people . Civility, for safeguarding society . These shades of gray that science is aching apparent now are things we are really going to have to think about. Thank you, nina. Great job. Give me 15 minutes. I do not know if your last speaker needs an introduction, but he is not going to get one. It is me. So far, we have heard people talk about science largely in the court room context. I want to open up the frame and talk about how genetics in particular are going to change our world in a way that will have some effect in courtrooms and in law. Asse of you who are here judges or lawyers or spouses and partners of judges and lawyers will see some of this professionally firsthand or secondhand. This is also going to have an enormous effect on each of us as patients, as citizens, as parents, and grandparents, and great paint great grandparents. The genomic revolution is going to transform our world, and is, i think, going to physically transform who our grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are. And that is what i want to talk about in my brief time. Focus on two specific areas. First, the inexorable rise of whole genome sequencing, and second, implications of prenatal genetic testing. Let me start with the first one. Whole genome sequencing. How many of you have had a genetic test . Raise your hands. I see about eight hands. Whomany anybody in here was born after the early 1970s should have raised his or her hands. All of you who have had children in the United States or other developed countries after the early to mid1970s have had your children genetically tested whether you knew it or not. You may be thinking, i dont remember the informed consent for that. That is because not only were you not given informed consent, you are not asked to consent. Mandatoryaw, it is that children be tested shortly after birth for a variety of genetic diseases. Genetics has been around for 40 years. Why is this going to change . I am a southern californian. There were about 100,000 cars in california. Today there are about 20 million cars. In kinds, differences are important. Differences in degree are important. 20 million cars have changed where californians live, where work, and the very air we breathe. We have had genetic testing for over 40 years, but it has been minor. Only eight have you raised your hands when i asked you about genetic test. I suspect that within the next 10 years everyone in this room not only will have been genetically tested, but will have his or her whole genome sequence on file in your Electronic Medical record. By the way, it is really important that we now have Electronic Medical records, because if we were to write out your genetic , they would be as long as f second. Not one volume of f second, but from one f second 299 f second. This is something i cannot even tell my law students anymore because they think f second is only a label that comes up on things in lexis. Enough those of you old to remember the books, that is the length of your genome, and we are going to have that in every one of your health records, probably within the decade. Why . Well, lynn pointed to one of the reasons why. Because we can. Because it is getting cheaper, easier and faster. We have moved from 300 million threethousand dollars to thousand dollars. Several companies have announced that by the end of 2012 they would have a 1000 genome. They didnt. They are not going to have it by the end of 2013 yet. But by 2014 i think it will be there, and by 2020, the 100 genome will probably be around. Now, what will that be useful for . , any time a child is born, instead of doing the tests we currently do for 50 diseases that cost several hundred dollars, we will probably test for everything. When the whole genome sequence people willp enough , why get 40 or 50 tests . Ets get them all suppose you have a Family History of cancer and your colonian thinks of cancer and your physician thinks you have a genetic history of it. If they can determine that, they can prevent it pretty effectively. ,f you have the genetic test lets see if you have the gene. Both the doctor and the Insurance Company will say why test for one thing . Lets get the whole sequence. Spend the 200 now, get the whole sequence, and we will never have to test you again. We will know everything, and we will be able to tell you about all sorts of Different Things that may be to your advantage. This, i think, is inexorably scientific medical complex is going to lead us for reasons both good and medical and maybe not so good and commercial, but like every good thing, it has some issues. First, how accurate will the whole genome sequence be . Mistake oneakes a in a million times, thats good, but if you have 3 million carriers, that is 3000 mistakes. If it is aou know problem with the gene or an accuracy problem with the test . The fda is not regulating these tests, at least not yet. Second issue, interpretation. When lynn was answering the question about the consumer companies. A wonderful study that the Accountability Office did. They took dna samples and sent them to three companies doing dna testing. Sumer each company analyzed them and gave them the raw data back. On the data, what dna was there, whats next, what polymorphisms, the companies were perfect. They were all the same. On what that meant medically for the companies differed a lot. A third of the time, one of the company said high risk and another company said low risk. Who does the interpretation . And how accurate will that be . I think that is going to be a huge problem, particularly if it is done by private Companies Using private algorithms that are not transparent, open to analysis, or fda approved. Company a says youre at high risk for diabetes. Company b says you are at low risk for diabetes. What do you know . And diabetes is one where preventative efforts are good for you, like low weight. But what if it is something that would lead to prophylactic surgery . If a company says we should take out your prostate gland and another company says no, no problem with your prostate gland. How are we going to decide that . The hardest issue will be how to explain this to people like you and me, people like you and me who may be even less sophisticated about medicine than you and i are. It is hard. The saving grace is test forou go in to something, it is usually for one thing. The doctor knows about the test. The doctor can say here is what this means. And it could give back but if it could give back the result not just for one thing but for everything, your doctor does not know what the diseases are and how to interpret it, and neither do you, and i can be a big problem. Information that can be a big problem. Information can be wonderful if it is used well but it can be an awful problem if it is used poorly. Take Breast Cancer, for example. If a woman does not have a of certainsion genes, she is not at 80 90 risk of getting Breast Cancer from those genes. So a woman goes and gets the test, learns that she is not at high risk. What if she says great, i dont have to get mammograms anymore . Serious problem. Womansage american risk of being diagnosed with Breast Cancer is about 12 . The average American Woman with a normal b r a c one or b rac to gene is about 11. 5 . Thatg improperly on information could be deadly. This room ares in at double or triple the normal risk of getting alzheimers disease because of our genes. If you learn that nu decide and you decide i should take senior status early, retire early, use my 401 k and go around the world while i can remember it, that might be a wise idea, or it might not be because your risk is still less than 50 , and if you dont have somebody explaining that to you, you could misinterpret the results in a way that could be damaging. How are we going to interpret 4000 results to people who cannot even explain dna cannot even spell dna, and how are doctors going to explain that . That is a challenge. King case,d versus expanding the database for butle who had been arrested not convicted. Genome isdys whole in their Electronic Health record and the police have a suspect crime scene dna, do they even go to code this, or do they send a subpoena to the local care system, or the veterans administration, or whoever has your Electronic Health records . And geneticmation information is protected just like all other health information. That is the good news and the bad news. What are the confidentiality issues . What are the issues about research . Researchers would love to get their hands on a full genome sequence of 100 Million People with Electronic Health records combined. Wantaybe they dont patients to be research centers. Are we going to give consent to be researched on or arent we . What about kids . Dont testus now is rightor diseases where now it is not going to make any difference. An example is huntingtons disease. Genomedo whole sequencing after birth, you have all the information. You got it done. What do you do with that . Do you give it to the uncensored . Probably not. Do you give it the parents . Do you give it to the pediatrician in the hopes that 18 years later the pediatrician will still be in contact . Are you put it in an envelope and say do not open until age 18 . These are questions we are going to have to deal with. Medicine will change in ways that i trust will ultimately be for the better, but we will face challenges in figuring out how to deal with it. I think even more important than that is the change we are going to see in having babies. People will still have babies, and i think people will still have sex, but i dont think people will have sex to have babies nearly as much as they have in the past. Prenatalgenetic genetic testing has also existed for 40 years. Of you may remember amniocentesis, the long needle at 1618 weeks. My wife had him year with our first child. She did not like it. She had cvs with our second child. She did not like that. We did not have a third child. You can do it, but it is expensive and risky. There is a risk of miscarriage. For Companies Offer prenatal testing from a blood draw, a quarter of an ounce of blood from a woman who may be as early as eight weeks pregnant to tell whether or not that fetus will have down syndrome. Or 18. Omy 13 or a high risk of alzheimers, or a high risk of cancer, or blue eyes. Draw, no muss, no fuss. Those of you who have gotten pregnant and had prenatal care no doubt remember that you had lots of blood draws. This is one more eight milliliter tube in an early blood draw. And that is going to change , becauseies are born it will take it from currently, about two percent of american women get prenatal genetic testing. I suspect that within 10 years that will be 70 80 who will learn about the genes of their fetus at a time they can do something about it. That is going to be transformative, but i think the real revolution is 20 or 30 years away. I am writing a book on it, now the end of, called sex. The good news is, it is not the end of their being boys or girls or the end of things boys and girls do with each other that we call sex, or boys and boys and girls and girls. Endit is going to be the for a large chunk of the sex toion in using conceive babies. Babies will no longer be conceived in bed, or in one of those california cars, or on a keep off the grass sign, or anywhere else. They will be conceived in an ivf clinic. Why . Because there is a procedure called preimplementation genetic rightnow says. If you have the embryo at day genetic diagnosis. If you have an mbe rail if you have an embryo at day three, it is eight cells. We can take one of those cells, due to genetic test and say this embryo is going to have Downs Syndrome. This embryo will get huntingtons. This embryo would be a great tissue donor for its older brother who has leukemia. Have done that for 20 years. It is not that the kids end up missing an arm or a leg. The other cells make up for the cells that were taken. It is that in order to do that you have to do in vitro fertilization. When an embryo is three days old, it is halfway down a womans fallopian tube and good luck trying to find it. Know exactly where the embryo is in three days. It is where you put it in the petri dish. Ivf is a pain. Unfair things in life, men are at an advantage. No man has ever been hospitalized from sperm donation. The 200,000of american women who go through a a st each year end up as end up in a hospital as a result. And every year somebody dies. Getting eggs is a problem. Getting eggs is a problem that has limited ivf. That is going to change because we will be able to take stem cells and turn them into heart muscle cells, liver cells, brain cells and eggs and sperm. Not the human embryonic stem cells you have heard so much about, although we could do it with that, but about six years ago, the japanese invented induced stem cells. You take normal cells, skin cells, hit them up with that cocktail of things and they start acting like embryonic stem cells. In fact, at different japanese scientist has made this work. He has done mouse in vitro fertilization using mouse eggs andved from mouse cells mouse sperm derived from mouse cells and made healthy mice. Dont try this at home yet. Mice are not people. Finally queue or us all when they figure out how to turn us all into mice q or us all when they figure out how to turn us all into mice because we can cure everything in mice. 20 or 30 years from now, a couple will go to a clinic. A woman will give up a skin cell which will be transformed into an egg. Then will give up sperm in traditional way probably. Its cheap and easy. Magazine costs are low. They will make embryos. How many will they make . Right now, that is limited to how many you get in an ivf for siege or. 8, 10, 15, maybe 20 ivf procedure. Maybe 20 with the current procedures. Technique, its unlimited. At 100. Y couples stop they will have 100 embryos cleverly named 1100. For each of those they will learn five categories of things. Does this embryo have any really nasty earlyonset disease like downs simba roam Downs Syndrome or sickle cell anemia . What about later on diseases that may not be quite so nasty . What about risks of alzheimers, Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer . Category three will be blue eyes or brown . What hair color . What skin color . Tall or short . Lucky enough to have early grey hair like the silverback or relatives who are the leaders in their bands or male pattern baldness or somewhere in between . Category four will be behavioral not just in the issues of violence, but the not asking for directions trait. We know what that is. That is the y chromosome. I dont think behavioral traits will be used because behavior is really complicated. I dont think we will be able to say this embryo, 2350 on the sats, but i think we will be able to say this embryo has a 60 chance of being in the top half or a 15 chance of being in the top 10 , whether it is for test scores, musical ability, sports, personality traits, all things we know are complicated but that we know from various studies have genetic correlations. The fifth category, the easiest to test for, boy or girl. Couple will get 100 andouts on 100 embryos asked ok, which one do you want to try to make your baby . I think it will be responsible for divorces when the man says i want that great quarterback. And the woman says i want Hillary Clinton or condi rice. Will have those choices. They will not be able to pick the designer baby. They will only be able to give or pass on what they have to give. Too blueeyed parents will not be able to produce a brown eyed child this way. 100furthermore, with different traits, 100 embryos all of youre you favorites, but with 10 that are the odds areyou, b pretty good. What will that mean . I dont know. Thats why i am writing a book. But i do think it means that our children, our grandchildren and our greatgrandchildren will face many different parenting issues than we did. The issues will start before. Arth before birth feel knowing he a quarterbackbe and he wants to be a poet . How will the parents feel when their foot tall baby turns out football baby turns out to be a poet . Everyone willthat be offered this for free because if you are an Insurance Company or a National Healthcare system, preventing the birth of one really sick baby will pay for 1000 of these tests. What about issues of coercion . Can the state say you cannot use it, you have to use it . Will there be countries that say towant all of our children be embryos that are above average so that north korea becomes lake will be gone . I dont know the answer to these but we are going to have to confront them, not because anybody sets out to create a brave new world, but because research, intended and focused on the relief of human purposes, on medical teaches us things that have secondary uses, teaches us more about genetics and interventions then necessarily we wanted to know. And gives us the opportunity to move into these areas, move into them slowly. The first use of this will not be for preimplantation genetic testing. It will be because adults who cannot have children of their own, because they do not make eggs or do not make sperm will want to use this to make their own eggs and sperm. Worksnford colleague who on this gets emails from people every week to make eggs or sperm for them so they can have their own genetic children. Thats pretty attractive. You start with that. The fda approves that area the other uses follow. So, the world will change. World changes all the time. Our great grandparents would not recognize the world we live in. Recognize the world our greatgrandchildren live in. Part of that will be genomics. Part of that will be the law. But more importantly, it will affect each of us as members of the species going forward. Thank you. [applause] i think i will waive my specific question and answer time and ask my fellow panelists to come up, and we will open the general q a. Again, please come forward to the microphone, and we will cart amongst each other if you do not have questions, and that is probably a bad idea. Everybody can see where we are supposed to sit except us. You guys got it. I assume most of you are familiar with the National Academy of science report on the forensic use of this kind of stuff. Several reports. Yes. The one the judge edwards chaired, as i understand it, says that the na is the only area of science that we can have a lot of confidence in. What are your thoughts about the report and the fact that generally the judicial system has ignored at . Who wants to take that on . Lynn . I will at least start on that point, on that question. It is probably fair to say, and i would be interested in my fellow panelists opinion on this, but i think it would be fair to say that dna evidence, in part because it is relatively wellt, and it lends itself to quantitative analysis, is probably the best scientifically. Upported forensic evidence that does not mean it is perfect, and that does not mean other forms of forensic evidence are so him perfect that they i thinkot be used, but the consensus is that dna evidence is scientifically, in general, quite well supported, and that is one of the reasons it has been generally well accepted. But other kinds of Scientific Evidence in some cases will be very valuable, and in other cases it wont. Genetic evidence is wonderful. It is interesting. It may be useful and important. It is certainly not determinative. Something like shannons bone analysis, i bet she could say tot as close as possible 100 certainty, certain wounds are made by certain sorts of things. Thatay not be able to say for all sorts of bone evidence she sees. The problem is there is no such thing as science or as genetics or as forensic anthropology. Specificts down to the question. In some specific questions, science can be really, really helpful, and in others it cant. That is why you have to really hope you have good expert witnesses who can tell the difference between the two. Can i make a remark about that . The precise statement in the dna evidence is the only form of evidence that has been shown reliably and consistently to permit an association between a crime scene sample and a single individual. It did not say it is the most reliable form of evidence for any purpose. It depends on your purpose. A report for the National Institutes of science and technology when fingerprinting. Sufferrint analysts grave dna envy. On the other hand, it is clear that when done properly and when the fingerprint evidence can be extremely valuable. Generalizations have to be applied on a casebycase basis. Is for dr. Greely and anyone else who wants to chime in on this. That mycked to learn son was genetically tested when he was born and i am sure he will be shocked as well. Where is this information . How can i get it . How can his father get it . How can he get it . How who has access to it and have there been any court cases on those, constitutional or otherwise . All right, so there is our topic for the remaining 20 minutes of the q a. [laughter] 1970s, every state has required genetic testing. It started with a handful of diseases. Pku is a nasty disease. You are born without a particular protein that turns an essential amino acid into another amino acid. You need this to live, but if it does not get transformed, too much of it builds up. For reasons we still dont understand, it kills brain cells. Notids with pku that are up usually severely mentally retarded. We are not talking working at mcdonalds or special olympics. We are talking about kids who never learned to talk, go to the bathroom by themselves, close themselves. Clothe however, if we put them on a special diet within days of the test, there i queue stays with iq stays within the normal range. They may lose a few brain cells, but not many. So states require the test. Only two states allow choice by parents not to do it. In every other state, it is a crime not to do it. A few states have philosophical or religious opt outs, although not many of them are used. Typically, you may learn that it has been done, but typically, parents will not learn it or know about it because if it comes back as a negative result, your kid doesnt have it, there is no reason to tell you. If it is a positive result, they then have to figure out if it is a true positive or a false positive, and that is maybe one in 1000 kids goes through that. Those are the parents who find out about it. A couple of years ago, people in texas and minnesota discovered that blood spots from heel were beingittle kids used for research. And texas made a miss cue of to use them for research. And parents thought their kids were being put into a criminal database. They sued both in texas and minnesota. Texas settled. Parents now have a chance to opt out of any research use and 5 million stored blood samples were incinerated without eating used for research. The minnesota case is still being used for research. The minnesota case is still pending. He will probably not get the results. Your children are tested for about 50 diseases. They are almost certainly negative on all of them, but somebody did the tests. These are not, strictly speaking, genetic test. Nobody is looking at gna. Theyre looking at things like phenylalanine levels. They would properly be called a metabolic screen. Although with all due respect to my friend and colleague, i think that is a quibble. Withe testing dna now neonatal testing. It is a test of proteins, but it is a test that tells you something about the underlying dna. So, a word about two things. I am going to have to contradict my esteemed colleague area the fbi did not get a hold of any samples from texas. To department of defense did look at the frequency of myocardial dna. Investigative reporter thought andas going into a database no one could persuade her otherwise. I will accept the friendly amendment. That i want to raise an even broader issue with the king case. I always come back to the same things. Namely, what is the difference between being arrested and not being arrested . A lot of people get arrested. Estimated that 20 or 30 of the population is going to be arrested. Is there a real difference . Written in my more provocative moments with some colleagues that maybe we ought to consider having at the stage neonatal testing, a not done by the police but uploaded to a database for use in the future. Law enforcement would never see all Genetic Information that is truly private. In that way, we would have a National Database and we would o worry about an arrestee database. Is it a scary idea . The underlying concern is that wow, this seems like an intrusion on my privacy, my childs privacy, who has access to it. It is a question that exists in every aspect of Genetic Information. I sit on the president s commission for bioethics. We issued a report called privacy in progress with genome sequencing that looks at the broader privacy concerns arising fromjen on the arising the study of genomic information. Trying tol view is restrict access to our genomic information is a losing battle. Prevalent. If i leave my glass behind, you can pick it up and get my saliva. Some states have restrictions, but it is pretty easily accessible. So what we need to do is start thinking about why do we care . What are we afraid of . If there are legitimate things we are afraid of, people discriminating against us, employer discrimination, health , longtermmination disability discrimination, if we think it is an offense to our , then we need to think misuse of Genetic Information, but access restrictions are going to be very difficult to enforce. But it raises a very important question for us, which is should we care about trying to keep our Genetic Information secret . All of our genomes are riddled with problems. Are we going to get to a place have ae are trying to conversation about concerns based oncrimination our genetic code . Anothert to throw in example before we finally get to a conversation before we finally get to another question. Prettyng you can learn clearly from dna usually is relationships in terms of where you came from. Relationships. In terms of where you came from, that is iffy, that whether a person is your genetic father, you can find that out. A famous case several years ago now of a kid who had known that his father was a at age 15, did, some snooping and ended up telephoning a guy and saying hi, i think you are my dad. The guy had been a sperm donor under condition of anonymity. He never wanted to be contacted. Without breaching any eventuality, one smart kid was able to trace him down. We may learn secrets we do not want to know. Are one quarter genetically similar, that says something about whether they share the same parents. That is another area of privacy involving family relationships but i think we have to think about when we consider genetic privacy. Dr. Jordi, when you made your , you talked about one which was one and 50 and another that was one in 70 and based on the presumption that you could multiply them together that there would be one in 3500. That has within it the assumption that there is no overlap. In that context and in light of the king case, there is concern that with regard to a system completely controlled by the fbi and government and not made generally available for research, that there is a bias within that system that is not evaluated ored or made present. I know that there was an article called what is the fbi afraid of. In that context, is there a need to make the system completely transparent so that every time someone gets arrested their mouth can be swabbed and this database created . There are actually two questions there. The first one, regarding the case i presented, part of the evaluation that i asked to present was of the referenced population in which we meet those one in 50, 1 and 70 and so forth. That reference population was not codes. Odis existed back then. In making the determination of independence, i had to testify about all the procedures done to demonstrate independence in a mattera, and that is of public record, so there is nothing all of the procedure was completely open and disclosed. Co second question was about dis. My feeling as a scientist is shoulddatabase like this be available to any bona fide researcher to be evaluated in any way for its validity. There have been several working groups who have done these kind itevaluations, but i think should be broadly open to the Scientific Community for evaluation. David, what did you conclude the fbi was afraid of . The fbis position is that convictedse of offenders and perhaps arrestees is not a very good database for genetic research. It contains many relatives. When you try to test independent assumptions, youre going to get mistakes. Second [indiscernible] even talking to x people from the fbi, with a sort of said was well, they run their thing and it is their territory and they dont want anybody else to play with it. And i think it may take Something Like a judges decision to give defense counsel access to challenge. There have been lawsuits to that effect. The arizona database was provided as a result of that and the Additional Research did not show any problems here. Australias database was given to a seattle geneticist to study. He found basically good agreements with the assumptions that dr. Jordi used in his calculations. It is not like there are no studies of this sort that have been done with convicted offender databases, but the largest in the world has not been studied in that way. And the fact that it is not allowed to be studied i think raises questions that could be resolved if it were allowed to be studied. There are many laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of race. Law native american long. Were statements as recently as 1920 that native americans were an inferior race. They talk about other people being of inferior races. Is there any genetic or scientific basis that supports . He concept of race other than men being inferior . I will speak to it in that race is a social construct but there are ancestral components we can see in genomics. And we can see differences based on an ancestral past. It may be that we will with genomics get to a place of greater precision than dividing people up i different heritage and by different ancestries theer than the concept of phenotype of a persons skin. Looking at a person tells you far less about their ancestry than being able to look at their genomic heritage, their , and beingal dna able to see genotypes that way through that kind of grouping. Legal scholars have written about are we going to have a new kind of racial profiling or ethnic profiling based on genotype . It is certainly a question people are asking. Is it possible that certain inherited ancestral patterns have an increased prevalence of, for example, low expression , in which case we might end up starting to say that subtype a or whatever that is is more likely to have criminal behavior, or this subtype is more likely to have higher iqs predisposition. That could happen. We are a far way off from that happening. There is such a complex set of factors that go into the expression of behavioral traits, but certainly it is a possibility. It has become much more precise than just looking at a persons skin. I think genetics has really helped us with this concept of race. Most scientists, in my experience, dont like the term or the concept of race because it is too broad. Tool for a very, very complicated issue. When we look at a genome, what we often see with individuals is that some of their genomes come from africa. Some come from asia. Some come from europe. A lot of us are very interesting and complicated mixtures and that has important Public Health complications, because you may have a particular segment of the chromosome that is usually found in european individuals that susceptibility, but on another chromosome, you may have ancestry from africa. Because we are often complicated , thates of genetics enlightens us and tells us that race is to blunt a tool, to cruel a tool to answer most of the important questions we face. And in the not very long run, we actually are all african. Within the last 80,000100,000 years, maybe a little longer depending on what you think about the neanderthals. We are all literally cousins. Some of us are second cousins. Some of us are 200 cousins. But recently one of my colleagues at stanford published a paper with new information about the y chromosome. It looks like all men, and all have a wideers, chromosome that had a common years ago,out 80,000 which was the same time we all gave usmmon mother that the mitochondrial dna. That does not mean that there were two people, adam and eve, but each of us is descended from the same person and a tiny dna tiny part of our dna is from about 100 pa about 100,000 years ago. And not very distant cousins. Are a new species in the closely related one, and i think that is the most important lesson genomics can tell us about race. Your honor. This question is for professor novak but it may spread a little bit through the panel. Short. Your time was one of the points you were making about the work in yugoslavia was the potential for collaboration between what you do and may be what genetic identification can do. Can you take a minute and just elaborate on that . Thank you. We all spoke about our subdisciplines and what we do, but i think it is important to understand that this work is collaborative. The work that is ongoing has advances greatly from in genetics over the last. Eeing what they are doing many times, we are working in the labs with geneticist, so as chromosomes, we help sort and match. Today it is not possible to test every little bit of bone. That is not reasonable. It is collaborative work. Even though they make us feel like superheroes in the labs that we come in and identify the individuals. Along with that has been amazing work with databases, stripping identities, and working within someones family. Former yugoslavia is particularly challenging in that you would have all the men in the family and extended family had died. Somewhere in the same grave. Trying to get those matches from families that had moved to the United States, move to other parts of the world, was really enhanced by various human rights groups. Whatnk this has taught us how we can work carefully with lawenforcement, still collect the data needed for restitution, but also how to work mostly with human rights groups, that their primary interest is in getting those individuals back to their families so those families can claim death and have some income where they had none. I have been trying to run this railroad on time and we are near the end of that time. Are more there questions than there are people at the microphones and that we have time to answer. My email is online. I am sure all of my colleagues academic emails are online. I would be happy to take follow up west germans at followup at lunch or via email and i think all of you all for listening to us over the last three and a half hours. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2013] on the next washington acrosstheboard budget cuts to the u. S. Armed forces. Changes to the voting laws and the effect that could have an americans ability to vote, and changes to voter ideologue. Trevor burns of the Cato Institute and wendy weiser will join us. Is liveon journal every morning at 7 a. M. On c span. If you are a middle or high school student, enter our student cam documentary contest, with a chance to win 5,000. Get more information and student cam. Org. Next, a bust of former Prime Minister Winston Churchill would the will be dedicated at u. S. Capitol. Secretary of state john kerry delivered remarks. This is an hour