Close
Story Time

My Experience at ASF!

April 5, 2023

STEMComm takes Atlanta Science Festival…

The entire VIP team!

A couple of weeks ago, I had the privilege of being a part of a very special presentation: The Devil Wears Science! (I am still obsessed with the name) This was my first time being a part of STEMComm during the Spring semester, which meant that I could finally attend the much-anticipated Atlanta Science Festival that our VIP participates in every year! I was ecstatic to finally see the show with my own eyes and even be an important part of it. I couldn’t be more thankful for the group of people that made this possible, it was truly incredible to watch it unfold. I am also super proud of the models that Dr. Mendelson found in his Ecuadorian friend and her daughters, they truly truly stole the entire show!! They displayed traditional Ecuadorian clothes while also showing off their very-own tagua nut jewelry. Everyone at the show loved their performance from start to end!

My Team!

I had the honor of being a part of the Nutty for Tagua team made up of myself, Julia Raver, and Dr. Joe Mendelson. With the whole theme of our science show being centered around sustainable fashion, Dr. Mendelson conjured up the idea of focusing on what is being coined “vegan ivory”. The presentation was on tagua nuts, a fascinating type of nut indigenous to South America that has the ability to mimic elephant ivory. We brought this idea to life by creating a presentation about the tagua nut’s background history, its sacred meaning and physical makeup, and its uses.

The tagua nut itself is grown in places like Colombia, Ecuador, Panama, and Peru and has been a significant part of the culture and economy of South America. The nut represents sacred, feminine energy and harmony among the indigenous people in these areas and has different uses depending on the nut’s maturity. At the very beginning of the nut’s life, it falls from the trees onto the floor and is collected to be carved, polished, and dyed. Right after sprouting, the nuts are soft enough to eat, with a sweet and pulpy taste. After hardening though, the texture turns so hard that it requires a saw to cut through! What makes the nut so special is that they closely resemble the ivory that elephants have in their tusks. They have a similar chemical makeup as wood as they are made up of dead-walled cells. The nuts can be turned into beautiful jewelry like necklaces, earrings, bracelets, and more. Not only used for adornment but they can also be fashioned into things like buttons and guitar picks. In fact, tagua nuts were utilized during the Civil War for the buttons of US soldiers’ uniforms since the material was cheaper than metal and ceramic.

Elephant Ivory Dupe?

With the poaching of elephant tusks and the illegal trade that has been going on since the 1980s, it has become more important now than ever that an alternative is presented. Although there are bans on poaching, they are not stopping the slaughter of the world’s biggest land mammal, the African elephant. Tagua nuts have created a glimmer of hope for the elephants’ survival since there would be no reason to continue killing the animals with a viable ivory option available. The tagua nut has been called a friend of elephants, and it truly has been serving as a helping hand to the species. The nuts can be shipped anywhere on Earth to act as a substitute for ivory, thus humans must stop looking to elephants for ivory, and welcome into the mix tagua nuts!

Loxodonta africana

My Overall Contributions

The Nutty for Tagua team chose me to be the speaker during the actual fashion show, and I knew I had to take the opportunity to shine as a senior STEMComm student. It would be my last time being a part of the VIP team before graduating, so it was extremely special to me to be able to speak. I was definitely nervous about presenting to a crowd since I am not huge on public speaking but knew that I had to stand strong for the rest of the team and represent us well. As a matter of fact, I am especially proud to be a member of STEMComm, so I had to show that in my presentation! After working with Julia on the script and editing it, I got started practicing the five minute speaking bit. I stumbled at first, but finally got comfortable projecting the information confidently. I was ready to present! When the day finally came, Julia got recruited as a last minute model for the beekeeping suit, which meant I was controlling the slideshow and presenting live- it’s harder than it looks! It surely wasn’t perfect, but I am happy with what our team gave to the show, and I could tell the audience enjoyed it too. I had so much fun participating in this event and I can’t wait to come back to attend STEMComm’s future ASF productions. From the backstage production to the music set-up, it was super cool to be a part of.

0Likes
About Author

Ivana is currently an undergraduate at Georgia Tech studying computer science. On a day off, you may find her binge-watching her new favorite TV show, playing with her two dogs, or playing solitaire/doing a crossword.

You May Also Like

Story Time, today i learned (til)
What is Computational Media? – Retrospective from a Graduating Senior
Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Conspiracy of the 12 Scientists!
Cartoon Dragon and fire with the title Dragon's Breath
Story Time
Stem-Tober 2023 | Cereal or a Rock?
Story Time, today i learned (til)
A Tiny Frog with a Mighty Voice – The Puerto Rican Coqui

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.