DNA experts around? (and no, please, no political experts! ;) )

[Calcoran]

All right, I guess this thread is rather controversial. It's connected with Saddam being captured and all, so we're probably on thin ice there .

Anyhow, we were discussing it with some collegues at work, and someone came up with a strange question: "Hey, how long does it take for a DNA test or identification anyway?". This got us all thinking. Some said it needed about a month (which is problematic), some said it only took a few hours ... but since noone had any experience in this field, we couldn't reach any conclusion. So I thought: what's the best group of experts on eclectic knowledge I know? Guess .

So that's my question: how long does it take for a DNA test or identification? I'm just wondering. And whatever the answer, I'm not looking for political analysis or whatever. Even if the question was started by it, let's try to keep away from the events in Iraq and to focus solely on answering the question. Please? Pretty please?

P.S.: If the moderators think that even asking the question verges on the political (I can understand it, it's just that I'd really like to know ) ... well, then just lock or delete the thread, I apologize for starting it.

[spyone]

1) I believ in the instance where the question came up, folks have said they don't need a DNA tenst because other factoirs have provided them with an identification they believe.

However, setting all that aside,
2) the test itself is a matter of hours, maybe even minutes IIRC. The delays are:
A) getting the sample to the lab
B) getting around to the testing.

For instance, if a DNA test takes 15 minutes and 2 technicians are working 8 hours a day doing them, how long will it take them to do the 150 tests requested before yours?
Of course, a high priority identification (is this puddle of goo Osama?) from someone with the kind of pull that a US President has can speed up the process considerably.

[spyone]

I went to Ask Jeeves and found a company doing paternity tests.


From their FAQ at http://www.gtldna.com/faq.html#2.3 :

How long does it take to get the results?

We guarantee to have the results ready in 5 days from receipt of samples. A shorter turnaround time of 3 working days can be arranged for an additional charge (see Services and Fees).

That doesn't include overnight shipping, which is included in their price. So, 1 day to send the sample, 3 for the test, 1 to ship the results.

And again, this is a commecial lab with lots of customers. I imagine the President doesn't have to wait a whole hour for photo developing or dry cleaning either.

[Lt Cmdr Matt]

Originally posted by Calcoran
P.S.: If the moderators think that even asking the question verges on the political (I can understand it, it's just that I'd really like to know ) ... well, then just lock or delete the thread, I apologize for starting it.

I won't lock it because what you are asking is not political, although I am watching it because it could turn into a political debate.

[C5]

BTW, since we are talking about it, I wondered about which body sample do they need to perform a DNA test, and, in cases like this, what do they compare their DNA sample against ?

[Calcoran]

Funny, I thought it took longer than that ... now of course, for very important issues like this they can have like 100 biologists stop what they're doing to complete the test as quickly as possible ... I wasn't sure it'd help to have 100 scientists trying to get a go at the same DNA-tester-computer-machine, hence the asking . But anyway, if some greedy company is able to do it in like three days, it's probably not as complicated as I thought it was. Funny, I didn't know companies did that. I thought there'd be all sorts of legal issues and all.

Anyhow, C5 raised some more valid questions. Where do they get the original DNA samples, and, more to the point, how can they tell they're genuine?

[Calcoran]

Oh, and thanks, Mr Moderator .

P.S.: Oh(bisTM), 900th post! Yay, slowly crowling towards thousanditude .

[Ergi]

Originally posted by Calcoran

Anyhow, C5 raised some more valid questions. Where do they get the original DNA samples, and, more to the point, how can they tell they're genuine?

They could compare the the similarity between the two dead bodies they claimed to be Saddam's sons, if 50% of relevant material is identical they know it is him.
However, considering Saddam's history it seems very likely that the CIA got a sample early. Some hair or saliva should have been enough. Of course we have to assume that the CIA agents didn't get fooled like the former Austrian head of state, who talked for over an hour with a double and didn't notice anything.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Calcoran
Anyhow, C5 raised some more valid questions. Where do they get the original DNA samples, and, more to the point, how can they tell they're genuine?

As has been said you could check against the samples taken from Uday and Qusay Hussein. Also the US has now got access to all of Saddam's palaces etc. Forensic teams would've gone in to obtain information including scouring the rooms for physical evidence of Saddam to aid in the identification of places where Saddam would have been. Finally, other Middle East intelligence agencies (Mossad for example) would have undoubtedly have such information. Finally, Saddam's personal physician was captured and probably would have that information (or at least know where it was kept and in the rush to leave Baghdad I doubt they would've even thought to destroy that information - if it was intact then it would've been taken away and given to the intelligence services).

This doesn't include the more darker ways the Western Intelligence agencies can obtain samples of DNA. Methods which I will not go into on a forum such as this.

[Capt. Anderson]

My friend works for company that designs DNA indenifcation markers and he said it can take up two hours with the equipment at his lab.

[Ergi]

Originally posted by JonA
Finally, Saddam's personal physician was captured and probably would have that information (or at least know where it was kept and in the rush to leave Baghdad I doubt they would've even thought to destroy that information - if it was intact then it would've been taken away and given to the intelligence services).

Why should his doctor keep tissue samples? My doctor certainly doesn't. At least I hope so.

Originally posted by JonA
This doesn't include the more darker ways the Western Intelligence agencies can obtain samples of DNA. Methods which I will not go into on a forum such as this.

What a pity! It was just getting interesting.

[Owen E Oulton]

Why would they need DNA to ID him? DNA is mostly used to ID decayed or partial bodies, or to match blood evidence to a person; rarely to ID an intact prisoner.

Saddam looked pretty intact in the news footage - fingerprints and/or dental records are much easier to find and compare, and just as reliable.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Ergi
Why should his doctor keep tissue samples? My doctor certainly doesn't. At least I hope so.

The tissue samples wouldn't have been kept but the DNA mapping would've most likely have been.

The Arabs leaders are notoriously paranoid and I have read in more than one source that DNA tests are regularly performed on leading government officials - including Presidents/Ayatollah's etc (often without these leader's knowledge) to ensure that the keader hasn't been replaced by an impostor (as if).

I'm sure Saddam wouldn't have willingly given a DNA sample during his reign of power but that said I'm sure his son's, aides etc would've done so descretely anyway (just to be on the safe side you understand).

As for our government agencies methods for collating intelligence. Our security services and intelligence agencies are not any less ruthless and determined as the other agencies of the world. In fact our agencies have a considerable more carte blanche authority to conduct their business than some of the Middle Eastern governments allow them. Our goverments are willing to turn a blind eye to their activities as long as tje ends justify the means. Whereas in the Arab world paranoia runs to multiple agencies watching each other closely.

But I digress.

[JonA]

Originally posted by Owen E Oulton
Why would they need DNA to ID him? DNA is mostly used to ID decayed or partial bodies, or to match blood evidence to a person; rarely to ID an intact prisoner.

Saddam looked pretty intact in the news footage - fingerprints and/or dental records are much easier to find and compare, and just as reliable.

Very true.

I just think they'd probably want to make absolutely 100% sure that it's him. He did have a number of lookalikes.

BTW: Saddam wore dentures so dental records wouldn't help much. As for his fingerprints. Although unlikely these can be altered using skin grafting. In fact it has been done on numerous occasions in the USA for people under the Witness Security programme.

[Balok]

Originally posted by C5
BTW, since we are talking about it, I wondered about which body sample do they need to perform a DNA test, and, in cases like this, what do they compare their DNA sample against ?

Any reasonably intact cell will do, as long as it has a nucleus. Red blood cells are no good; they lack nuclei. However, white blood cells have them, so blood can be used. Hair can be used if there's a bit of follicle clinging to the hair. Saliva from many people contains cells. You can also painlessly scrape a few cells off the inside of the mouth.

Personal hygene objects, like hairbrushes, that are known to be the property of an individual can be used to retrieve hairs. Semen samples can be retrieved from sheets. And so on.

The hardest thing isn't getting the DNA, it's getting DNA you know came from a specific person. Usually, it works like this: you have a suspect, and you have DNA from a crime scene, so you take a little of the suspect's DNA to see if they're the same. To identify Saddam, they have to work it backwards; they have some DNA they're reasonably sure came from him, and they'll confirm by comparing it to DNA taken from the man they captured and believe to be him.

It used to take a very long time to do the test because the markers had to be compared manually (techs looked at photos of each sample, and established a certain number of similarity markers). Modern techniques automate the process, which produces more reliable results in a far shorter time.