(Part of the biometric product marketing expert series)
There are certain assumptions that you make in biometrics.
Namely, that certain biometrics are unable to differentiate twins: facial recognition, and DNA analysis.
Now as facial recognition algorithms get bettter and better, perhaps they will be able to tell twins apart: even identical twins.
But DNA is DNA, right?
Twins and somatic mutations
Mike Bowers (CSIDDS) links to an article in Forensic Magazine which suggests that twins’ DNA can be differentiated.
For the first time in the U.S., an identical twin has been convicted of a crime based on DNA analysis.
The breakthrough came from Parabon Nanolabs, who’s scientists used deep whole genome sequencing to identify extremely rare “somatic mutations” that differentiated Russell Marubbio and his twin, John. The results were admitted as evidence in court, making last week’s conviction of Russell in the 1987 rape of a 50-year-old woman a landmark case.
Parabon Nanolabs (whom I briefly mentioned in 2024) applied somatic mutations as follows:
Somatic mutations are DNA changes that happen after conception and can cause genetic differences between otherwise identical twins. These mutations can arise during the earliest stages of embryonic development, affecting the split of the zygote, and accumulate throughout life due to errors in cell division. Somatic mutations can be present in only one twin, a subset of cells, or both, potentially leading to differences in health and even developmental disorders—and in this case, DNA.
The science behind somatic mutations is not new, and is well-researched, understood and accepted. It’s just uncommon for DNA to lead to twins, and even more uncommon for somatic mutations to be able to distinguish between twins.
Note that “well-researched, understood and accepted” part (even though it lacks an Oxford comma). Because this isn’t the only recent story that touches upon whole genome sequencing.
Whole genome sequencing and legal admissibility
Bowers also links to a CNN article which references Daubert/Frye-like questions about whether evidence is admissable.
Evidence derived from cutting-edge DNA technology that prosecutors say points directly at Rex Heuermann being the Gilgo Beach serial killer will be admissible at his trial, a Suffolk County judge ruled Wednesday….
Heuermann’s defense attorney Michael Brown had argued the DNA technology, known as whole genome sequencing, has not yet been widely accepted by the scientific community and therefore shouldn’t be permitted. He said he plans to argue the validity of the technology before a jury.
Meanwhile, prosecutors have argued this type of DNA extraction has been used by local law enforcement, the FBI and even defense attorneys elsewhere in the country, according to court records.
Let me point out one important detail: the fact that police agencies are using a particular technology doesn’t mean that said technology is “widely accepted by the scientific community.” I suspect that this same question will be raised in other courts, and other judges may hold a different decision.
And after checking my blog, I realize that I have never written an article about Daubert/Frye. Another assignment for Bredebot, I guess…
Your identity/biometric product marketing needs to assert the facts rather than old lies,
Bredemarket 
1 Comment