|
|
|
“CLONED” PRIMATES AND THE POSSIBILITY OF IDENTICAL FINGERPRINTS (The following original article was submitted by the authors)
by MARY BRANDON1
Everyone working in forensic identification has wondered at some time about the possibility or probability of encountering identical fingerprints. The fingerprint professional spends a great deal of time studying, examining, and matching fingerprints. By doing so, one cannot help but develop a progressive appreciation and understanding for the cornerstone tenet of fingerprint identification, which is the fact that all fingerprints are unique and no two fingers are exactly alike. [1] Over time with the ever expanding number of prints examined, the more profound this statement becomes. Of the millions of prints compared since the onset of maintaining fingerprint files by the FBI in 1924, no two fingerprints from different persons have ever been matched or considered identical. [2] The fingerprint is the pillar of modern criminal identification. [3] In court, the value of fingerprint evidence is critical in making a case; for it alone can serve to either prove or disprove identity. It is the uniqueness and individuality documented by a skilled examiner which allows for positive identifications. What might happen, if just once, two prints from different persons were considered to be identical? The consequence would be devastating to law enforcement, particularly to the field of identification. The recent news accounts of cloning and genetic engineering using animals has sparked some lively but concerned dialog. This speculation prompted us to consider a number of potential issues and ultimately to ask the questions: “Is it possible that cloning could produce identical fingerprints?” Fresh on the hooves of Dolly, the cloned sheep in Scotland, was the likewise sensational news that the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center (ORPRC) in Beaverton, Oregon, had produced “genetically indistinguishable” sibling monkeys. This advanced the discussion further regarding the possibility of finding identical fingerprints. Our professional curiosity was piqued. If genes are responsible for producing physical characteristics, and these procedures incorporated using the same genetic material, what end result would be produced as far as fingerprints are concerned? Until now, speculation about identical fingerprints in humans has focused on identical or monozygotic twins as the most likely source to provide identical prints. Monozygotic twins are produced when a single fertilized egg or ovum spontaneously divides. It is an accepted scientific fact that even monozygotic twins do not have the same fingerprints. [4] Some human twins yield strikingly similar ten--print sets, perhaps the most alike of any specific group. We have all seen closely related family members who have pronounced similar physical features which we commonly regard as family resemblance. There is also the occurrence of fingerprints which are exceptionally similar among such family members. The implications are intriguing; there appears something compelling about this realm of genetic experimentation that we should explore. Despite the misleading media term used that the monkeys were clones, we learned that the process employed was not cloning but a similar bio--genetic technique called nuclear transfer. To better understand the significance of the primate procedure at the ORPRC, it is important to discern some fundamental differences between cloning and nuclear transfer. Though both are forms of asexual reproduction involving transplantation of cell material containing DNA, the end results from cloning is the creation of genetically identical offspring from parent. The harvested DNA material comes from adult--stage cells from a donor parent. Nuclear transfer produces identical siblings which are extracted from eight--cells--stage (no adult) donor eggs. In this procedure, research scientists separated cells which had DNA extracted from a first monkey. Then, they fused some of those cells containing cells into “shells” or enucleated eggs which had been created by removing chromosomal DNA from eggs harvested from a second monkey. Finally, the resulting newly formed embryos are transferred into surrogate monkey mothers. On this occasion at ORPRC, nine female monkeys received about eighteen embryos and two live births resulted. The monkeys produced here are not genetically identical because they were created from different (cellular) components, but are considered genetically equivalent to monozygotic twins. However, the techniques can be applied to produce identical monkeys. Dr. Don Wolf, scientist at the ORPRC, stated, “We have proven the technology and now, to get genetically identical animals, it will be only a matter of transferring embryos created from a single embryo.” [5] Paired with the influence of genetic material, another extremely important contributing factor to embryonic development is fetal environment. Together, fetal environment, in conjunction with genetically programmed development, play an essential role in the formation of what becomes friction skin. Beginning around the third month of fetal life, observable ridge detail begins to form and is apparent by the fifth month of gestation in humans. The general pattern of a finger is influenced by heredity, while the papillary minutiae are a result of stress and variable pressure on the tactile surfaces as the points fuse into lines during in utero development. [6] Ridge alignment, ridge shape, minutiae location and the location of pore openings on the ridge unit, all evolve randomly. [7] According to David R. Ashbaugh in Ridgeology:
In theory this sounds fine; however, the current opportunity to have shared genetic material within siblings is new and significant and could change our way of thinking. While the international attention paid to Dolly turned heads, the news about the nuclear transfer primates causes a greater concern to the field of forensic identification. Of course, cloven sheep would not pose a problem to the fingerprint community. However, with the genetic manipulating of such closely related to humans as the rhesus monkey, a few concerns surfaced. One particular concern is: Could the fingerprints of these two nuclear transfer created twins be the same? With this question in mind, three of us from the forensic identification community set out to investigate. We obtained clearance and permission from the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center to visit and obtain fingerprints for comparison. Entering the 250--acre woods surrounded complex, we traveled past a small group of animal rights activists stationed on the road opposite the facility entrance. Passing through a security gate, we arrived at the administration building for a brief orientation. We then were taken to the colony building where the primate population lives. Due to the special nature of contact with the only two existing nuclear transfer created primates, protective measures were employed. Negative TB tests results were required. Gloves, lab coats, and face masks were worn while in contact with the monkeys. We were introduced to our subjects: NETI (Nuclear Embryo Transfer Infant), 329 days old, and her brother DITTO, 322 days old. (Their mother was no longer at the ORPRC to fingerprint.) One at a time, they were chemically sedated and carefully placed in a supine position on a padded examination table. Employing a variety of techniques, we printed and photographed NETI and DITTO. Working as quickly as possible before the sedation wore off, we struggled to master the very odd feeling of printing the small nonhuman subjects weighing approximately 3--1/2 pounds each. A cursory first glance revealed delicate and clear ridge detail. Both hand and footprints were obtained and examined. The hands measured 6mm from the palm base to the tip of the middle finger and 2.5mm across the hypothenar area. A detailed examination showed all the fingertip patterns to be elliptical whorls. (see prints-4 images). Though the pattern type on both hands and feet were the same, the ridge characteristics differed. Two unique features on both primates' palmar surfaces of the hand were observed: (1) the whorl patterns in the hypothenar area and interdigital areas, and; (2) a striking star--shaped pattern formed by the flexion creases of the palms. (See photographs). It is interesting to note that in subsequent research regarding primate fingerprint patterns, whorls by far are the most commonly appearing pattern. Overall, these prints compared to each other were remarkably similar but not identical. Based on these comparisons, while the nuclear transfer and cloning processes have given us the opportunity of possibly encountering identical prints, it is with great relief that we did not. The result of not finding identical prints supports and enhances the past and present findings of the unlikely occurrence of such prints. Due to the combined effect of genetic and fetal environmental variances, identical prints will not occur. With the advent of various cloning procedures, fingerprint professionals must maintain an active interest in biotechnical developments that pertain to fingerprint identification. The worst outcome of our inquiry would have been to find identical prints. A lesser but substantial negative consequence is to be unconvincing, unclear or unknowledgeable during courtroom argument regarding the durability of the fact, and the reasons why no two fingerprints are the same. Nature has been nudged, but wisely did not flinch. The snowflake theory remains intact and so does the science of fingerprint identification. We found, as FBI Latent Fingerprint Examiner Robert Hazen stated, that fingerprints remain “the most dynamic physical evidence known to exist.” [8] [The authors thank the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center for their many courtesies to us and in particular, to Sam Seamon, Colony Supervisor, for his assistance and patience. And, of course, we thank NETI and DITTO without whom there could be no such study.]
1 Mary Brandon, Sergeant Criminalist, Portland Police Bureau, Portland,
OR. (Editor--—Our thanks to the authors and the Research Center for this timely article. The subject of identical prints from clones has made for some interesting conversations since “Dolly” made the news. Research and experiments in cloning, nuclear transfer or any other method of producing genetically identical offspring will continue to provide further evidence for understanding the environmental influences during fetal development.) REFERENCES:
1. Olsen, Robert D. Scott's Fingerprint Mechanics. Springfield, IL: Thomas,
1978, pp 29--30.
This original article was printed in “THE PRINT” |