Inferring identify from DNA profile evidence.

The controversy over the interpretation of DNA profile evidence in forensic identification can be attributed in part to confusion over the mode(s) of statistical inference appropriate to this setting. Although there has been substantial discussion in the literature of, for example, the role of population genetics issues, few authors have made explicit the inferential framework which underpins their arguments. This lack of clarity has led both to unnecessary debates over ill-posed or inappropriate questions and to the neglect of some issues which can have important consequences. We argue that the mode of statistical inference which seems to underlie the arguments of some authors, based on a hypothesis testing framework, is not appropriate for forensic identification. We propose instead a logically coherent framework in which, for example, the roles both of the population genetics issues and of the nonscientific evidence in a case are incorporated. Our analysis highlights several widely held misconceptions in the DNA profiling debate. For example, the profile frequency is not directly relevant to forensic inference. Further, very small match probabilities may in some settings be consistent with acquittal. Although DNA evidence is typically very strong, our analysis of the coherent approach highlights situations which can arise in practice where alternative methods for assessing DNA evidence may be misleading.

Desensitization of N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors: a problem of interpretation.

The phenomenon of desensitization is universal, but its mechanism is still ill-understood and controversial. A recently published study [Lin, F. & Stevens, C. F. (1994) J. Neurosci, 14, 2153-2160] attempted to cast light on the mechanism of desensitization of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, in particular the vexed question of whether the channel must open before it can desensitize. During the desensitizing preexposure to agonist in those experiments, more desensitization was produced when channel openings were observed than when no openings were observed. The conclusion that "desensitization occurs more rapidly from the open state" unfortunately was based on a stochastic fallacy, and we present here a theoretical treatment and illustration showing that the observed behavior is predicted by a simple mechanism in which desensitization can occur only from a shut state.