culture,’ said Susan. ‘I think you should go away and plot them on the same scale and then you will see there’s no significant difference.’
The boy left her office, peering closely at the graph he held up to his face, the paper almost touching his glasses. Susan shut the door behind him and turned, wearing a smile. ‘You know,’ she said. ‘It’s amazing just how much people see because they want to see it.. ’
Steven found her smile disarming. ‘Not a breakthrough then,’ he said.
‘ Not even a tap on the door.’
Susan Givens was a good-looking woman in her mid thirties, slim and dark-haired with a smooth olive skin. She exuded a confidence that suggested she might be capable of spotting a phoney at two hundred yards on a foggy night.
‘ I understand you’d like me to carry out some DNA work for you, Doctor?’ she said.
Steven handed over the polystyrene box and said, ‘This contains a number of semen samples, which were collected at the scene of a rape and murder of a young girl eight years ago. This is a buccal swab extract taken at the time from the man who was subsequently convicted for the crime. It was the matching of these two that sent him down for life. Steven took out another small packet from his briefcase and said, ‘This is a buccal swab that I took myself from that same man yesterday. I need to be sure they convicted the right man.’
Susan took the samples and asked, ‘Is there any reason to believe that they didn’t?’
‘ Every reason and no reason at all,’ replied Steven.
‘ And I thought bullshitting was the province of my students.’
Steven smiled. ‘I’m sorry, I have no concrete reason to believe that there’s a problem but there are factors surrounding the case that have made me feel uneasy. I need to be sure there has been no mistake.’
‘ You said eight years ago?’
‘ The girl, Julie Summers, was murdered in January of 1993.’
‘ I’m just trying to think how good DNA fingerprinting was at that time,’ said Susan.
Steven opened his briefcase and took out the forensic lab’s photographs of the DNA gels. ‘These are what the forensic lab submitted in evidence,’ he said.
‘ They’re good,’ said Susan admiringly. ‘In fact, they’re very good indeed. I didn’t think they had the software at that time…’
‘ Software?’
‘ I’m sure it’s nothing significant but I don’t think these are photographs of the actual DNA gels they ran in the lab. Call me suspicious, but they’re too clean. They’ve almost certainly been tidied up — or digitally enhanced, if you prefer. It’s my guess that someone used Adobe Photoshop or some other imaging software on them.’
‘ You’re telling me they’ve been altered?’ asked Steven, feeling a surge of excitement at the prospect.
‘ That might be going too far,’ said Susan, taking a closer look, this time using a magnifying lens. ‘They’ve probably just been cleaned up for aesthetic reasons.’
‘ Is that normal practice?’
Susan shrugged and said, ‘It’s more common than people let on. There’s really nothing wrong with it as long as it is confined to tidying. If of course, people were to use it to actually add or remove elements to or from the gel then you’d be entering the realms of scientific fraud.’
‘ Would it be easy to add or remove elements, as you put it?’ asked Steven.
‘ Very,’ replied Susan. ‘Once the hard data is converted to a computer image, the world’s your digital oyster.’
‘ I can understand the temptation, particularly in a research lab,’ said Steven. ‘If the presence or absence of a single band on a gel can make the difference between an exciting result and nothing.’
‘ But the repercussions can be equally great,’ said Susan. ‘If a researcher were caught doing that, his or her career would be over.’
‘ Have you ever known someone to try?’ asked Steven.
‘ Scientific fraud has always been with us,’ said Susan. ‘And we’re not just talking about ambitious students taking shortcuts. Scientists of world renown have fallen from grace over it. Common or garden arrogance is usually the cause. Some scientists believe so strongly in their theories that they dismiss their continued failure to come up with supporting evidence as some kind of technical difficulty. Frustration leads to manipulation of the data to show that what they believe must be true — or worse still, they’ve occasionally been known to browbeat their research students into coming up with data to support their pet theories. This is why we have rigorous peer review of work before it gets published in the journals.’
‘ Foolproof?’ asked Steven.
‘ No,’ replied Susan. ‘But it stops the more overt rubbish getting through the net. Apart from that, science has its own inherent safeguard.’
‘ How so?’
‘ Science is conservative with a capital “C”. If you try to publish work that sounds entirely new and radical, the scientific establishment won’t like it. Every aspect of your paper will be examined in minute detail by career scientists who will go through it with a fine-tooth comb, looking for reasons not to publish it. The work really has to be well done and that’s as it should be. Unfortunately, the other side of the coin is that if you submit work that supports the scientific establishment’s view of things, you will have a much easier time of it. Your paper will sail through the refereeing process. People see what they want to see.’
Steven nodded.
‘ So now you can guess what ninety percent of the research journals contain,’ said Susan with a wry smile.
‘ Nothing of any great import at all?’ ventured Steven.
‘ Right,’ laughed Susan. ‘They are full of work that amounts to little more than the crossing of t s and the dotting of i s, people telling each other what they want to hear, work confirming what has already been shown to be so. Some scientists have turned saying the same thing over and over again into a minor art form. But in a world where scientific achievement is equated with the number of papers you’ve had published, what else can you expect?’
‘ You make it all sound rather depressing,’ said Steven. ‘But I suppose it’s the best system we’ve got.’
‘ It is,’ smiled Susan. ‘But that doesn’t make it good.’
‘ How easy would it be to fake a DNA fingerprint match?’ asked Steven.
‘ If we’re talking about altering the actual gel data to make it appear that one person’s DNA fingerprint matched another’s, impossible I’d say. They are just so highly individual.’
‘ So you couldn’t see anyone attempting it?’
‘ Frankly, no.’
‘ How about simply photographing the same gel twice and pretending that they came from two different sources?’
‘ It would be quite obvious that the photographs had come from the same gel. There are always lots of little distinguishing marks in the polyacrylamide — that’s the jelly that the gel is made from. A first year student would spot it right away.’
‘ Could these marks not be removed by using the software you spoke about earlier?’
‘ There are just so many of them when you look through a magnifier that you would be left with something that had so obviously been doctored that no one would believe it anyway.’
‘ Good,’ said Steven. ‘So if you come up with a DNA match from the sample I’ve just given you it means that this man is guilty beyond doubt.’
‘ If the DNA from the buccal swab you took matches the DNA from the semen then it’s perfectly safe to say that they came from one and the same man — unless of course, he has an identical twin somewhere,’ said Susan.
‘ He hasn’t,’ said Steven.
‘ In that case, leave me your number and I’ll be in touch.’
ELEVEN
