DNA Fingerprinting

    DNA is the genetic material found within the cell nuclei of all living things. In mammals the strands of DNA are grouped into structures called chromosomes.¹ With the exception of identical siblings (as in identical twins)²，the complete DNA of each individual is unique.

    DNA fingerprinting is sometimes called DNA typing.³ It is a method of identification that compares bits of DNA. A DNA fingerprint is constructed by first drawing out a DNA sample from body tissue or fluid such as hair, blood, or saliva. The sample is then segmented using enzymes, and the segments are arranged by size. The segments are marked with probes and exposed on X-ray film，where they form a pattern of black bars — the DNA fingerprint.⁴ If the DNA fingerprints produced from two different samples match，the two samples probably came from the same person.

    DNA fingerprinting was first developed as an identification technique in 1985. Originally used to detect the presence of genetic diseases⁵，it soon came to be used in criminal investigations and legal affairs. The first criminal conviction based on DNA evidence⁶ in the United Statesoccurred in 1988. In criminal investigations, DNA fingerprints derived from evidence collected at the crime scene are compared to the DNA fingerprints of suspects. Generally, courts have accepted the reliability of DNA testing and admitted DNA test results into evidence. However, DNA fingerprinting is controversial in a number of areas： the accuracy of the results, the cost of testing, and the possible misuse of the technique.   

    The accuracy of DNA fingerprinting has been challenged for several reasons. First, because DNA segments rather than complete DNA strands are "fingerprinted" ； a DNA fingerprint may not be unique ； large-scale research to confirm the uniqueness of DNA fingerprinting test results has not been conducted. In addition，DNA fingerprinting is often done in private laboratories that may not follow uniform testing standards and quality controls. Also, since human beings must interpret the test, human error could lead to false results.

    DNA fingerprinting is expensive. Suspects who are unable to provide their own DNA to experts may not be able to successfully defend themselves against charges based on DNA evidence.

    Widespread use of DNA testing for identification purposes may lead to the establishment of a DNA fingerprint database.

词汇：

figerprinting /ˈfɪŋgəprɪnt/ n. 指纹法，指纹术 

nucleus /"nju:klɪəs/ n. 核，中心
genetic / dʒəˈnetɪk / adj. 遗传的 

mammal /ˈmæml/ n. 哺乳动物
chromosome /ˈkrəʊməˌsəʊm/ n. 染色体 

identification /"aɪˌdentɪfɪˈkeɪʃn/ n. 识别，鉴定，证明
enzyme /"enzaɪm/ n. 酶 

suspect /səˈspekt/ n. 嫌疑犯
fingerprint / ˈfɪŋgəprɪnt / n. 指纹 

saliva /səˈlaɪvə/ n. 唾液
segment /ˈsegmənt/ vt.  分割，分裂；切片，不笨
controversial / ˌkɒntrəˈvɜ:ʃl / adj. 有争议的 

uniform /"ju:nɪfɔ:ml/ adj. 一致的，相同的

注释：

1.In mammals the strands of DNA are grouped into structures called chromosomes.哺乳L动物的 DNA线被组合为称作染色体的各种结构。
2.With the exception of identical siblings (as in identical twins)：生物姊妹体除外（如完全相同的双胞胎）
3.DNA fingerprinting is sometimes called DNA typing. DNA 指纹检查法有时也称 DNA 印记法。
4.The segments are marked with probes and exposed on X-ray film, where they form a pattern of black bars - the DNA fingerprint.切片先用探针做标记，然后在X光片上曝光。胶片上形成 由黑色条纹组成的图案，这就是DNA指纹。
5.Originally used to detect the presence of genetic diseases ： (DNA 指纹法）开始是用来探测遗传病的存在
6.The first criminal conviction based on DNA evidence：基于 DNA 提供证据的首例定罪

Some people believe that using a DNA fingerprint may not be so reliable because____

A:the accuracy of DNA fingerprinting has been challenged B:no private laboratory follows uniform testing standards or quality controls C:mistakes are possible when researchers explain the results of their tests D:suspects may not have enough money to provide their own DNA to law-courts

The Belgian blue is an ugly but tasty cow that has 40% more muscle than it should have. It is the product of random mutation followed by selective breeding—as, indeed, are all domesticated creatures. But where an old art has led, a new one may follow. By understanding which genetic changes have been consolidated in the Belgian blue, it may be possible to design and build similar versions of other species using genetic engineering as a short-cut. And that is precisely what Terry Bradley, a fish biologist at the University of Rhode Island, is trying to do. Instead of cattle, he is doing it in trout. His is one of two projects that may soon put the first biotech animals on the dinner table. The other project is led by Aqua Bounty.
It is one thing to make such fish, of course. It is quite another to get them to market. First, it is necessary to receive the approval of the regulators. In America, the relevant regulator is the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA), which Aqua Bounty says it has been petitioning for more than a decade and which published guidelines for approving genetically engineered animals in 2009. Aqua Bounty has now filed its remaining studies for approval, and hopes to hear the result this year. Dr Bradley has not yet applied for approval.
The FDA is concerned mainly with the healthfulness of what people put in their mouths, and it seems unlikely that the new procedures will yield something that is unsafe to eat. But what happens if the creatures escape and start breeding in the wild For that to be a problem, the modified fish would have to be better at surviving and reproducing than those honed by millions of years of natural selection. On the face of it, this seems unlikely, because the characteristics that have been engineered into them are ones designed to make them into better food, rather than lean, mean breeding machines.
But there is a chink in this argument. As Mark Abrahams, a biologist at Memorial University in Newfoundland, points out, it is not just the fish that have been modified by man, but also the environment in which they could escape. Many of the creatures that eat salmon and trout, such as bears and some birds, have had their ranks thinned by human activity. Dr Abrahams thinks it possible that fast-growing salmon could displace the natural sort in places where predators are rare.
Aqua Bounty is addressing such concerns by subjecting developing eggs to high pressures. The result, if all goes well, will be that animals follow plants down the biotech route. Whether people will actually want to buy or eat the new fish is a different matter— though they buy the meat of Belgian blue cattle at a premium. Perhaps clever marketing could make "double-muscled" fish into a premium product, too. If people will pay extra for meat from a monstrosity like the Belgian blue, anything is possible.

A:It was produced like all other domesticated creatures B:It was produced by natural breeding C:It was produced using genetic engineering as a short-cut D:It was a product of cross breeding

The Gene Industry Major companies are already in pursuit of commercial applications of the new biology. They dream of placing enzymes in the automobile to monitor exhaust and send data on pollution to a microprocessor that will then adjust the engine. They speak of what the New York Times calls "metal—hungry microbes that might be used to mine valuable trace metals from ocean water". They have already demanded and won the right to patent new lifeforms. Nervous critics, including many scientists, worry that there is corporate, national, international, and inter-scientific rivalry in the entire biotechnological field. They create images not of oil spills, but of "microbe spills" that could spread disease and destroy entire populations. The creation and accidental release of extremely poisonous microbes, however, is only one cause for alarm. Completely rational and respectable scientists are talking about possibilities that stagger the imagination. Should we breed people with cow-like stomachs so they can digest grass and hay, thereby relieving the food problem by modifying us to eat lower down on the food chain? Should we biologically alter workers to fit the job requirement, for example, creating pilots with faster reaction times or assembly-line workers designed to do our monotonous work for us? Should we attempt to eliminate "inferior" people and breed a " super-race"? ( Hitler tried this, but without the genetic weaponry that may soon issue from our laboratories. ) Should we produce soldiers to do our fighting? Should we use genetic forecasting to pre-eliminate "unfit" babies? Should we grow reserve organs for ourselves, each of us having, as it were, a " savings bank" full of spare kidney, livers or hands? Wild as these notions may sound, every one has its advocates (and opposers) in the scientific community as well as its striking commercial application. As two critics of genetic engineering, Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard, state in their book Who Should Play God? " Broad Scale genetic engineering will probably be introduced to America much the same way as assembly lines, automobiles, vaccines, computers and all the other technologies. As each new genetic advance becomes commercially practical, a new consumer need will be exploited and a market for the new technology will be created." Which of the following notions is NOT mentioned?

A:Developing a " savings bank " of one’s organs. B:Breeding soldiers for a war. C:Producing people with cow-like stomachs. D:Using genetic forecasting to cure diseases.

The Gene Industry Major companies are already in pursuit of commercial applications of the new biology. They dream of placing enzymes in the automobile to monitor exhaust and send data on pollution to a microprocessor that will then adjust the engine. They speak of what the New York Times calls "metal—hungry microbes that might be used to mine valuable trace metals from ocean water". They have already demanded and won the right to patent new lifeforms. Nervous critics, including many scientists, worry that there is corporate, national, international, and inter-scientific rivalry in the entire biotechnological field. They create images not of oil spills, but of "microbe spills" that could spread disease and destroy entire populations. The creation and accidental release of extremely poisonous microbes, however, is only one cause for alarm. Completely rational and respectable scientists are talking about possibilities that stagger the imagination. Should we breed people with cow-like stomachs so they can digest grass and hay, thereby relieving the food problem by modifying us to eat lower down on the food chain? Should we biologically alter workers to fit the job requirement, for example, creating pilots with faster reaction times or assembly-line workers designed to do our monotonous work for us? Should we attempt to eliminate "inferior" people and breed a " super-race"? ( Hitler tried this, but without the genetic weaponry that may soon issue from our laboratories. ) Should we produce soldiers to do our fighting? Should we use genetic forecasting to pre-eliminate "unfit" babies? Should we grow reserve organs for ourselves, each of us having, as it were, a " savings bank" full of spare kidney, livers or hands? Wild as these notions may sound, every one has its advocates (and opposers) in the scientific community as well as its striking commercial application. As two critics of genetic engineering, Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard, state in their book Who Should Play God? " Broad Scale genetic engineering will probably be introduced to America much the same way as assembly lines, automobiles, vaccines, computers and all the other technologies. As each new genetic advance becomes commercially practical, a new consumer need will be exploited and a market for the new technology will be created." Which of the following notions is NOT mentioned?

A:Developing a " savings bank " of one’s organs. B:Breeding soldiers for a war. C:Producing people with cow-like stomachs. D:Using genetic forecasting to cure diseases.

The Gene Industry Major companies are already in pursuit of commercial applications of the new biology. They dream of placing enzymes in the automobile to monitor exhaust and send data on pollution to a microprocessor that will then adjust the engine. They speak of what the New York Times calls "metal—hungry microbes that might be used to mine valuable trace metals from ocean water". They have already demanded and won the right to patent new lifeforms. Nervous critics, including many scientists, worry that there is corporate, national, international, and inter-scientific rivalry in the entire biotechnological field. They create images not of oil spills, but of "microbe spills" that could spread disease and destroy entire populations. The creation and accidental release of extremely poisonous microbes, however, is only one cause for alarm. Completely rational and respectable scientists are talking about possibilities that stagger the imagination. Should we breed people with cow-like stomachs so they can digest grass and hay, thereby relieving the food problem by modifying us to eat lower down on the food chain? Should we biologically alter workers to fit the job requirement, for example, creating pilots with faster reaction times or assembly-line workers designed to do our monotonous work for us? Should we attempt to eliminate "inferior" people and breed a " super-race"? ( Hitler tried this, but without the genetic weaponry that may soon issue from our laboratories. ) Should we produce soldiers to do our fighting? Should we use genetic forecasting to pre-eliminate "unfit" babies? Should we grow reserve organs for ourselves, each of us having, as it were, a " savings bank" full of spare kidney, livers or hands? Wild as these notions may sound, every one has its advocates (and opposers) in the scientific community as well as its striking commercial application. As two critics of genetic engineering, Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard, state in their book Who Should Play God? " Broad Scale genetic engineering will probably be introduced to America much the same way as assembly lines, automobiles, vaccines, computers and all the other technologies. As each new genetic advance becomes commercially practical, a new consumer need will be exploited and a market for the new technology will be created." Which of the following notions is NOT mentioned?

A:Developing a " savings bank " of one’s organs. B:Breeding soldiers for a war. C:Producing people with cow-like stomachs. D:Using genetic forecasting to cure diseases.

The Gene Industry Major companies are already in pursuit of commercial applications of the new biology. They dream of placing enzymes in the automobile to monitor exhaust and send data on pollution to a microprocessor that will then adjust the engine. They speak of what the New York Times calls "metal—hungry microbes that might be used to mine valuable trace metals from ocean water". They have already demanded and won the right to patent new lifeforms. Nervous critics, including many scientists, worry that there is corporate, national, international, and inter-scientific rivalry in the entire biotechnological field. They create images not of oil spills, but of "microbe spills" that could spread disease and destroy entire populations. The creation and accidental release of extremely poisonous microbes, however, is only one cause for alarm. Completely rational and respectable scientists are talking about possibilities that stagger the imagination. Should we breed people with cow-like stomachs so they can digest grass and hay, thereby relieving the food problem by modifying us to eat lower down on the food chain? Should we biologically alter workers to fit the job requirement, for example, creating pilots with faster reaction times or assembly-line workers designed to do our monotonous work for us? Should we attempt to eliminate "inferior" people and breed a " super-race"? ( Hitler tried this, but without the genetic weaponry that may soon issue from our laboratories. ) Should we produce soldiers to do our fighting? Should we use genetic forecasting to pre-eliminate "unfit" babies? Should we grow reserve organs for ourselves, each of us having, as it were, a " savings bank" full of spare kidney, livers or hands? Wild as these notions may sound, every one has its advocates (and opposers) in the scientific community as well as its striking commercial application. As two critics of genetic engineering, Jeremy Rifkin and Ted Howard, state in their book Who Should Play God? " Broad Scale genetic engineering will probably be introduced to America much the same way as assembly lines, automobiles, vaccines, computers and all the other technologies. As each new genetic advance becomes commercially practical, a new consumer need will be exploited and a market for the new technology will be created." Which of the following notions is NOT mentioned?

A:Developing a " savings bank " of one’s organs. B:Breeding soldiers for a war. C:Producing people with cow-like stomachs. D:Using genetic forecasting to cure diseases.