DNAprint Genomics (DNAG)

[SlopsterSlasher]

By: mjam3
31 Jul 2003, 10:51 PM EDT
Msg. 266185 of 266251
(This msg. is a reply to 266171 by ice105.)
Jump to msg. #
Ice, et al. - Tony presented a pretty dry analysis of how he (and Mark Shriver) developed the science and technology leading up to the tools 1) Iris - Retinome, 2) Hair - Retinome HA, 3) skin tone and 4) admixture - DNAWitness. He then led in to a close which was a soft sell of the product line up. He gave some specifics on how the LA serial case unfolded. Some questions at the end on price, size of sample, etc... Absolutely nothing new to this board other than the enhanced versions of the test for forensics using the 71 AIM, 175 AIM and 1000 AIM tests. He did say that we were running the most advanced tests in the world and many of DNAPs experiments were first time ever type events.

He was above the head of the audience with the science but he had to lay out the process to validate the tools. When I commented on this he alluded to it being the same way with big pharma. When he meets with them the science is way over their heads. He said it was 10 times easier to develop the science to predict drug response that to predict the forensics tools.

Tony also confirmed what a few of us have been saying for almost a year. Forensics and Ovanome and Statnome are merely tools to provide "proof of principle", i.e. the science works. These are not the means to the end. What we (at least I) didn't know was that becoming a drug company was the end game. A simple plan.