Abstract

In response to Caragine and Prinz [ [1] ] we have held the position for many years [ [2] ] that there are serious concerns about the application of low copy number (LCN) typing. These concerns have always been about the scientific issues related to LCN typing and are not brought on by a recent activity in the legal system as they intimate. The issues raised in Budowle et al. [ [3] ] and other publications [ 2 , 4 ] are about validity and reliability and such a discussion should be welcomed as part of a healthy debate by the forensic scientific community. Attempts to dismiss the discussion on LCN typing on non-scientific bases are detrimental to the forensic science field. Our hope is that by open discussion of its potential problems and limitations, and with continued research in this area, that some day LCN typing will enjoy the robustness seen with other DNA typing procedures. We address the scientific issues related to LCN typing herein, but unfortunately must also address the non-scientific issues raised by Caragine and Prinz to set the record straight. We urge the community to continue a dialogue on the validity and reliability of LCN typing focused on the science.

view journal