Dramatic Growth In DNA-Based Forensics Doesn't Translate Into Job Opportunities

Government and private labs are springing up to accommodate expanded use of genetic evidence, but retraining existing workers. In less than a decade since DNA analysis brought forensic science into a new era, the growth of the discipline--as an evidentiary tool as well as an industry--has been massive, as more and more high-profile cases hinge upon the evidence it provides. Yet the phenomenal expansion of its use in courts around the United States is not translating into new entrepreneurial or employment opportunities, researchers and industry observers contend, for a variety of reasons. "The bottom line is that the availability of DNA testing is increasing, and as the supply of labs increases, so does the demand," maintains Mark Stolorow, director of operations at Germantown, Md.-based Cellmark Diagnostics, a publicly traded business unit of pharmaceutical firm Zeneca Inc. that performs DNA analysis. "The demand is totally elastic." To fill that demand personnelwise, however, laboratory directors are "just converting people," according to Robert E. Gaensslen, director of the forensic science program at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. Currently employed workers are being retrained in the new molecular biological techniques. And, in the case of business, the present barriers to start-up in the already six-year-old industry can be insurmountable, say executives. American Academy of Forensic Sciences Haskell M. Pitluck, president Anne Warren, executive director P.O. Box 669 Colorado Springs, Colo. 80901-0669 (719) 636-1100 Fax: (719) 636-1993 E-mail: membship@aafs.orgy publishes the Journal of Forensic Science 4,200 members Canadian Society of Forensic Science Fredricka Monti, executive secretary 2660 S. Vale Crescent, Suite 215 Ottawa, Ontario K1B 4W5 Canada Phone and Fax: (613) 738-0001 700 members Council on Forensic Science Education Moses Schanfield, president Analytical Testing Center 7808 Cherry Creek Dr., South Denver, Colo. 80231 (303) 750-2023 Fax: (303) 750-2171 Mid-Atlantic Association of Forensic Scientists Jeffrey C. Kercheval, president Hagerstown Police Department 50 N. Burhans Blvd. Hagerstown, Md. 21740 (301) 790-3700, Ext. 232 Fax: (301) 790-3220 300 members Midwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Anthony J. Tambasco, president Mansfield Police Laboratory 30 N. Diamond St. Mansfield, Ohio 44902 (419) 755-9732 Fax: (419) 755-9737 730 members Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists Jeffrey Luver, president Suffolk County Crime Lab Suffolk County Office Building #487 Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787 (516) 853-5585 Fax: (516) 853-5739 450 members Northwest Association of Forensic Scientists Larry Campbell, president Vancouver Coroner's Office 1285 W. Broadway, Suite 308 Vancouver Bridge, B.C. Canada V6H 3X8 (604) 660-7718 Fax: (604) 660-5290 E-mail:larry.campbell@deepcove.com 280 members Southern Association of Forensic Scientists Brian Douts, secretary Georgia Bureau of Investigation 3121 Panthersville Rd. Decatur, Ga. 30034 (404) 244-2709 Fax: (404) 244- 2759 840 members Southwestern Association of Forensic Scientists Ron Urbanovsky, president Texas Department of Public Safety 5805 North Lamar St. Austin, Texas 78752 (512) 465-2143 Fax: (512) 465-2869 370 members The watershed date for forensic DNA analysis in the U.S. was Nov. 6, 1987, when an Orlando, Fla., jury convicted Tommy Lee Andrews of rape, for which he received a 22-year sentence. Andrews was the first person in the U.S. to be identified in court through the use of DNA analysis. Two scientists--one from Lifecodes, a Valhalla, N.Y.-based biotech firm, and another from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology--testified that semen from the victim matched Andrews's DNA, and that Andrews's DNA profile could be found in only 1 in 10 billion individuals. In 1989, only three laboratories--one at the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and two private labs, Lifecodes and Cellmark Diagnostics--were performing DNA forensic analysis. Now, nearly a dozen private labs and about 50 state and local crime labs conduct the tests. According to Stolorow, who worked in the forensic serology program for the Illinois State Police prior to coming to Cellmark in 1989, only a few thousand cases--from all labs--involved DNA-based forensics in 1990. Today, Howard Coleman, president of GeneLex Corp., a Seattle-based private biotech firm, estimates in his book In The Courtroom: A Trial Watchers Guide (H. Coleman, E. Swenson, Seattle, GeneLex Corp., 1994) that the total annual caseload has grown to more than 10,000, 75 percent of which involve sexual assault. Scientists who primarily have interdisciplinary training in forensic science and biology--collectively called forensic serologists--are the faces behind the highly publicized DNA data. At the federal-government level, 15 examiners in the DNA Unit of the FBI's analytical laboratory in Washington, D.C., currently handle the agency's caseload. Although the FBI declines The Scientist's request to discuss DNA in forensics because of concerns related to the ongoing O.J. Simpson murder trial, a spokesperson does note that the unit has dealt with close to 9,000 cases over the last six years, with nearly 1,500 in 1989, its first full year of operation. Shortly after the FBI started analyzing DNA evidence, Virginia followed in May 1989 with a DNA crime lab of its own. "We were the first at the state level in the country to start offering DNA testing," recalls Deanne Dabbs, program manager of the serology/DNA section for the state's division of forensic sciences. "And in 1994, we completely replaced conventional serological analyses," such as blood, polymorphic-enzyme, and serum-protein typing to develop evidence. In the private sector, Stolorow estimates, approximately a dozen firms currently perform DNA testing, with about five major labs performing 90 percent of that work. "The number of private labs opening is not as large as the number of public labs," he remarks. "One of the reasons is that the barriers to start-up are becoming progressively more difficult because the labs already in business have [developed] a major role and reputation. New labs have that much of a hurdle to overcome." Despite this apparent lack of room for new entrants, he observes, private labs "have a very stable niche" in the market. Handling cases initiated by defense attorneys "will always be in the hand of the private sector." Private labs fill several other roles, as well. The FBI lab and a number of state labs follow strict case-acceptance policies that limit the types of crimes as well as other criteria under which they'll analyze DNA evidence. They are restricted to DNA evidence from violent crimes--essentially murder, sexual assault, and kidnapping. In addition, they can use the technology only on new cases, and then analyze only samples of blood and semen provided by authorized law-enforcement agencies. Private labs, therefore, fill the void, in such areas as missing-body cases in which a sample of unknown origin is matched to possible family members' DNA profiles or theft in which blood stains are present at the scene. Private labs also fit into the caseload mix by helping to reduce state-lab backlogs. They step in, for example, to help the prosecution ensure that a defendant obtains a constitutionally mandated speedy trial. "The person has to be brought to trial within a certain period of time after having been charged in an arraignment. Some state labs are unable to finish the work in a timely way and produce results in time for the prosecution," explains Stolorow. Despite the seemingly great variety of work for private labs, Stolorow says, the lion's share of cases are being analyzed in public labs. "The total number of cases dedicated to the private market is larger than the number of cases done in 1990, but as a proportion of the total it has stayed the same." Cellmark, for example, currently handles samples from nearly 500 criminal cases per year, one of the largest private caseloads. By comparison, last year the FBI handled about 2,500 cases. No matter who is commissioning the tests, Stolorow asserts, "there is still a demand for DNA testing that exceeds the supply, which will probably be the case for many years to come." One area that may be adding to the work of private labs is the creation of databases by states, using DNA samples from convicted felons. Michael DeGluglielmo, director of forensic analysis at Genetic Design Inc., a public firm in Greensboro, N.C., says his company's caseload has steadily increased since 1990. "We do somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 cases a year," he reports, adding that a large portion of the business is database work. Genetic Design was recently awarded a three-year contract with the state of Alabama to analyze about 12,000 samples for the state's first DNA database. The database is intended to be used when there are crime-scene samples but no suspect, "much like a fingerprint database is used," DeGluglielmo explains. Thirty-two states have passed laws to create similar databases, legislation made possible under the Federal Crime Bill of 1994. Not all states, however, have appropriated funds as yet to obtain and analyze samples. DeGluglielmo surmises that 10 to 12 states are actually gathering DNA samples from felons. Even though caseloads and other DNA-based forensic activity are increasing, a parallel rise in job opportunities for forensic serologists with training in molecular biology has not materialized. Jay Siegel, immediate past president of the Council on Forensic Science Education and assistant director of the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University, says that "the bulk of the [DNA] training is being done on the job," in part because it is more efficient to train people in-house. "The university [programs] provide the [theoretical] background." Virginia's Dabbs confirms the opinions of Gaensslen and Siegel: "Our efforts have been to train existing forensic serologists." She reports that technicians at her state lab who are involved in the analysis of DNA evidence must have at least six months of experience with biological samples in a crime lab and have six graduate credits in lab and classroom coursework in such subjects as molecular biology and human genetics. "Beyond that, we do on-the-job training varying from six months to a year," sessions that take place at workshops conducted at FBI facilities or industry-based labs. Academic forensic scientists and lab directors say that the most common educational-degree combination is a B.S. in biology or medical technology and then specialization through an M.S. in forensics. Dabbs contends that undergraduates "have the educational credentials, but they don't have the forensics-application experience." But there are opportunities, she says, for interested students to get the needed practical experience, such as in internships in industry and state or federal facilities. Siegel lists some of the few institutions with master's-degree programs in forensics that include coursework in DNA serological methods and theory: George Washington University; the University of New Haven; the University of California, Berkeley; Michigan State University; and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York. In fact, the new master's program at Michigan State, says Siegel, will include a class in DNA serology in which students will learn polymerase chain reaction (PCR) techniques, one of the newest methods used by forensic labs. For the latest listing of all forensic programs, he suggests consulting the March 1994 issue of the Journal of Forensic Science, which lists programs worldwide. "Despite O.J. Simpson," maintains George Sensabaugh, a professor of forensic science at the University of California, Berkeley, "forensic science is not a high-profile academic area. Most of the programs are small." For example, Gaensslen says, his program turns out four to five graduates in criminalistics a year, about half of whom have a heavy concentration in molecular-biological techniques. According to Coleman, a "generous estimate" of the number of forensic serologists in the U.S. is 1,000. Paul Ferrara, director of the Virginia Division of Forensic Sciences and chairman of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors' Laboratory Accreditation Board, says that, of that number, several hundred scientists are certified in biochemical and molecular-biological techniques. At this point, Gaensslen says, "the jobs are mostly filled." But according to Stolorow, forensic serology has some limited demand for scientists: "I think if someone is qualified, if they're recently graduated and they have an inclination to get into forensic science, they may have to apply to several places to get in; but if they're qualified and dedicated there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to get in if they're patient."

Dramatic Growth In DNA-Based Forensics Doesn't Translate Into Job Opportunities

Apr 16, 1995

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of