Thanks to zenon1900 for the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/science/01conv.html?ex=1215576000&en=2d0be3a55a10075e&ei=5070&emc=eta1

Biologist Teaches the Nation's Judges About Genetics

James P. Evans, a physician and molecular biologist, teaches genetics at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. He also directs the school's Clinical Cancer Genetics Services, counseling patients about genetic testing. On weekends Dr. Evans, under the auspices of the Advanced Science and Technology Adjudication Resource Center — a Congressionally mandated program — teaches the nation's judges about genetics. Dr. Evans, 49, was interviewed recently in New York; he had come to speak at the World Science Festival.

Q. WHY DO JUDGES NEED TO KNOW THEIR GENETICS?

A. Because they are frequently trying cases that hinge on genetics. And many don't know what DNA is. They may have a rough idea. But they don't understand the fine points.

If they sit in a criminal court, they are increasingly seeing homicide and sexual assault cases where DNA evidence is used to identify defendants. In the civil court, they are seeing cases on who owns genetic information and on whether environment or a genetic disposition caused cancer in a plaintiff. Cancer is the largest single cause of medical negligence suits — and it is, at its most fundamental level, a genetic disease. These jurists are seeing cases where the question is, "Was this person's cancer triggered by environmental factors, or was it caused by a genetic predisposition?"

Many of the judges say that they fear their lack of scientific knowledge could cause them to make mistakes. They say they don't know how to weigh DNA evidence. They are afraid of being snookered by expert witnesses.

Q. ARE JUDGES THE SORT OF PEOPLE WHO MIGHT BE AFRAID OF SCIENCE?

A. This is a huge issue. Yes! A lot of judges report that they did prelaw in college because it did not involve science. One of my favorite judges, a brilliant man, is fond of telling people he "flunked science in kindergarten." So in these workshops, I think of myself as a newfangled type of science teacher, instructing extremely smart and distinguished adults in science fundamentals.

Q. HOW DO YOU DO THAT?

A. I try to demystify all of science and, specifically, genetics. I begin by telling them exactly what DNA is, and how we find it. We do a mini-lab where they isolate their own DNA and look at it. When they can hold it in their hands, the mystique melts. Then, I describe how we use DNA to identify a unique individual. We talk about the pitfalls of doing DNA typing. Once we have the basics down, we do a practice court, where we make up fact patterns in hypothetic cases that might involve DNA. We ask the judges to speculate on how they might use DNA evidence and why. We might go: "You've got a murder case where some DNA from a suspect is found in the trunk of a victim's car. Under what conditions could this be evidence of guilt?"

Q. AND THE ANSWER IS?

A. If the defendant was a friend of the victim, they might have been lifting something into the car trunk and shed some DNA there. But if the defendant didn't know the victim at all, score one for the prosecution. Humans shed DNA easily. Our testing is highly sensitive. If it's in a place it shouldn't be — let's say in the vagina of a rape victim or at a crime scene — it can be incriminating.

I think the judges appreciate the hands-on nature of our course. After a recent workshop, a judge asked me, "Exactly how much DNA is a nanogram's worth?" When I informed him that the DNA in our test tube was 10,000 times more than a nanogram, he was relieved. He'd just decided a case that hinged on the quantity of DNA found at a crime scene. By working with his own DNA, he could see he'd rendered the right decision.

Q. BEHAVIORAL GENETICS IS THE HOT NEW AREA OF STUDY. ARE CRIMINAL COURT JUDGES BEGINNING TO SEE "MY GENES MADE ME DO IT" DEFENSES?

A. Yup. We know some antisocial behaviors — drug addiction, alcoholism, a propensity toward violence — have genetic components. Therefore, one can easily imagine things reaching a certain level of predisposition and a lawyer going, "My client is not responsible for his actions any more than someone mentally ill is responsible."

In reality, those claims have not made it very far — yet. One judge, after learning about behavioral genetics, said to me, "If this proves out, our entire conception of culpability in crime and punishment will have to be reconsidered."

Q. DO SCIENTISTS AND JUDGES HAVE MUCH IN COMMON?

A. Well, a scientist almost never says anything absolutely. Everything is a theory, to be disproved or adjusted later on. Judges worry a lot about the certainty of conclusions, too. Judges are used to thinking of truth as an elusive concept. A lot of judges, when you bring up "the truth," they roll their eyes. They say, "I don't know what to say about truth. I do know about probabilities."

Q. AND ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU DO — WORK WITH PROBABILITIES?

A. Yup. That's what a geneticist does. We're all about probability. In my medical genetics clinic, when I counsel someone who's had a gene test, I might say: "The BRCA2 mutation you were found to carry confers about a 50 to 85 percent risk of breast cancer and a 25 percent risk of ovarian cancer."

Q. THAT'S A HUGE LIKELIHOOD. WHAT ELSE DO YOU TELL HER?

A. I say: "You have two main choices. You can engage in heightened surveillance, but of course that isn't actually prevention. The most effective strategy is prophylactic mastectomy and removal of your ovaries, which reduce your risk of those cancers by over 90 percent."

Q. THAT'S A HORRIBLE CHOICE.

A. But it's all we've got right now. I can understand why many women wouldn't opt for it. Those who opt for it tend to be women who've seen a lot of family members die of breast cancer.

Listen, when it comes to genetic medicine, the only point to testing is to obtain information you can act on. Right now, there are only a handful of genetic diseases which we can do something to prevent. BRCA2 breast and ovarian cancers are among them. For other diseases, like Alzheimer's and Huntington's, the only value to knowing is for life-planning. There's no prevention.

Q. DO YOU LIKE YOUR WORK?

A. I sure do. With my patients, I can take a full hour with each one and show them how their genes might predict their future. An hour with an individual patient is a huge luxury these days, but it can save lives. With the judges, I feel gratified when a few of them tell me, "Gosh, now I understand what DNA is." What makes me feel even better is when one of them says, "I hated science in school, but genetics sounds real beautiful."