Life and Laterality

I have spent my life struggling to open jars, use scissors, play video games, and shake people’s hands because the world is built for the 90% of it who are right handed, the 90% that isn’t me. Like most lefties, I have learned how to use my right hand to do almost everything except write or throw things, because that is how technology is set up. I got so used to some of it that something like a left handed computer mouse is anathema to me; However, I remember having to struggle with both the piano and my teacher, because the whole concept was built opposite to me, or rather, I was built opposite to the concept. For one of my birthdays, I received scissors designed for left handed use and it’s still one of my favorite gifts.

I am the only lefty in my family. Both of my parents are right handed, and so is my sister. If we look at side preference from a genetic point of view it’s clear that right preference is a dominant gene. Starting with a Mendelian approach to genetics, to get both a right handed and a left handed child, both of my parents would need to have a recessive gene for left preference. Parents who are both left handed are more likely to produce left handed kids, but the ratio is only about 40% at its highest. (McManus, 1991) Families where the mother is left handed are more likely to produce left handed kids, which could be due to genetics or to socialization as the mother is often the primary caretaker, and there have been few adoption studies on the subject of laterality which could have helped clear up the nature vs. nurture debate. Men are more likely to be left handed than women. The ratios are still around 10% of the total population, but there is a small difference between sexes.

There have been a variety of tests to determine laterality in humans, split up into two main groups: hand preference and hand performance. The first type involves sending out a questionnaire to people, asking them to identify if they use their left, right, or either hand to perform a task and then measure the frequency of answers one way or the other. The second type involve asking participants to perform various tasks, such as placing pegs into holes, and measuring the time taken for the right hand and the left hand and measuring that way. (Porac, 2015)

By looking at the tools used by paleolithic people– the construction, wear, and reconstructing some of the hand grips– anthropologists have discovered that the ratio of human laterality (10% left to 90% right) has remained about constant since the beginning of human society. (Llaurens, 2009) The question is why this minority of left handed people has persisted almost unchanged. Scientist look both at genetics and social upbringing. It is unlikely though, that laterality is anything other than a mixture of the two.

One theory for the persistence of lefties is that there is a combat advantage. When most of the population uses their right hand to fight with a sword or spear, people who are left handed often learn how to fight against people who are right handed when they are young, while people who are right handed only know how to fight against right handed people. So, when a righty comes upon a lefty in a battle, the righty is tripped up by their opponent being opposite to what they expect, allowing the lefty an easier victory as they are already used to fighting right handed people. In fact, one study (Raymond, 1996) seems to support this theory; the researchers compiled data of the frequency of handedness in sports participants. Sports with a clear adversary like fencing or soccer had a larger ratio of left handed people than the normal population, while sports without opposition like bowling remained consistent with the normal population.

There is something to be said for the biological component as well. Plenty of lefties die of accidents caused by living in a society that is built for right preference (Coren, 1989), and many societies historically have killed, ostracized, abused, and retrained their left handed individuals to conform with the right handed majority, however, the ratio of lefties to righties in these societies is still close to the global average. The persistence of this polymorphism suggests a biological component that is nigh impossible to weed out completely. For example, fetuses have been shown to have lateral preference, which leads some people to believe that the cause of human laterality could stem from the uterine environment and/or hormonal composition, specifically how much testosterone is present.

The persistence could also be due to the aforementioned retraining. When people lose the use of their right hand– either because they lost their right hand entirely or had some other loss of dexterity– they are more than capable of retraining themselves to be left handed. Some humans probably learn to use their left hand because they were bored, think it was a useful skill, or just because human beings are contrary. People who have weaker natural side preferences are more likely to bow to the way they were taught, which could also be a cause for persistent left handedness.

Human beings are not the only creatures to display side preference. Most apes also show a preference for using one had over another when completing tasks on the individual level. (King, 1993; Lehman, 1993; McGrew, 1997) However, primates ratio of handedness is about 1:1 for left handed and right handed individuals in the total tested population. Lateral asymmetry in primates is a difficult thing to prove.

Why does laterality in humans present so asymmetrically? Some researchers have tried to connect this to language learning ability which is the basic trait used to separate humans from other primates. (McManus, 1991) The theory goes that the dominance of right preference has somehow lead to language development in homo sapiens. Researchers over the years have connected left handedness to shorter life spans and learning disabilities, but I think that this should be taken with a grain of salt and a reminder that correlation does not equal causation especially since a person’s laterality can change over their lifetime.

I am left with three questions at the end of my own research: Why do bilateral animals have a preference at all? Why isn’t everyone ambidextrous? Why are humans so asymmetrical as a species where laterality is involved? I don’t know, and an answer is unlikely to be found within my lifetime, but it’s fascinating nonetheless.

 

day1poisonous

 

References:
Coren, S. (1989). Left-handedness and accident-related injury risk. American Journal of Public Health, 79(8), 1040-1041.

King, J. E., & Landau, V. I. (1993). Manual preference in varieties of reaching in squirrel monkeys. In Primate laterality(pp. 107-124). Springer, New York, NY.

Lehman, R. A. (1993). Manual preference in prosimians, monkeys and apes. In Primate Laterality (pp. 149-181). Springer, New York, NY.

Llaurens, V., Raymond, M., & Faurie, C. (2009). Why are some people left-handed? An evolutionary perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 364(1519), 881-894.

McGrew, W. C., & Marchant, L. F. (1997). On the other hand: current issues in and meta‐analysis of the behavioral laterality of hand function in nonhuman primates. American Journal of Physical Anthropology: The Official Publication of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, 104(S25), 201-232.

McManus, I. C. (1991, February). The inheritance of left-handedness. In Ciba Found Symp (Vol. 162, No. 251281.8).

Porac, C. (2015). Laterality: Exploring the enigma of left-handedness. Academic Press.

Raymond, M., Pontier, D., Dufour, A. B., & Møller, A. P. (1996). Frequency-dependent maintenance of left handedness in humans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 263(1377), 1627-1633.

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.