Mingwan0: My feelings on this are the same as yours. The trepidation is only to the misuse of a tool by "guns to savages" syndrome. You give a savage a tool(gun) to hunt with and instead of bringing home more meat for the table he conquers the neighbors and uses them for slaves in his fields!
In the case of the article, the author commented about the DNA dragnet being cast over a broad field. Much data was collected and processed, and perhaps more than can be easily assimilated by the investigative machine. Given the budget required for this dragnet technique to be employed, I wonder if the people involved gave any thought to "cold cases" that could have been processed with the same funds?
If you gave me the same chisel as Michaelangelo, I'd give you gravel. Sophisticated tools in the hands of, or at least at the disposal of the unsophisticated can sometimes blunt the tool instead of creating a masterpiece. I just fear for the misapplication by the unsophisticated resulting in a fiasco reflecting badly on the field.
Then again, maybe the whole story was a plant, to cause those reluctant witnesses to step forward???
Matt Thomas was referred to in the GMED 10Q as participating in the sample prep with DNAP for Doctor Moscowitz. Given the degrees removed stance of DNAP from DNA phenomics and the stated connection with the officers of DNAphenomics with GMED etc.; How would you infer the relations are between Doctor Moscowitz and Doctor Frudakis? It's almost as if all the hullaballoo created on this board a few months ago gave the mentioned companies an idea?? Perhaps there is solace for us in the accomplishment of bringing together all these players with just a few posts on a bulletin board??? (Swab in Cheek)
Stakddek
