Close
today i learned (til)

Too Hot to Handle

May 3, 2023

As my previous article mentioned, this will be focused on what my role in The Devil Wears Science and what my group had accomplished for everything to run smoothly. I was in the group called Too Hot to Handle along with Sachit Swaminathan and  Ashmitha Aravind.

Below showcases what was going on since October 2022. You would think that it was mostly researching about the science behind our piece of clothing, you aren’t wrong, but we also had to take into mind the time limit in presenting our findings in a fashion show, why was it important, etc.

Brainstorming: 

  • We divided into groups, one for each professor 
  • We started to through out ideas based off what everyone was involved in on campus or what they like to do (hobbies/clubs/organizations)
  • We came to an agreement to focus on bees
    • it was also due to that Dr. Leavey was our professor and she works with the bees
    • Dr. Leavey is the advisor of the beekeeping club so it was like we had a foot in the door before we started
  • She gave us ideas on what type of science to focus on:
    • heat exhaustion/heat stroke
    • beekeepers suits pros/cons
    • real world examples
    • other professions that deal with this
    • GT related research work

Dividing work within our group:

  • We all decided to research information about heat exhaustion, heat stroke, the science behind both of these topics, examples in the real world and any experiment/research that GT might be involved in related to our topic
  • Some specific topics that we focused on: prevention, treatment, consequences, examples, researchers at topic 

February – March:

  • Dividing into groups helped us obtain 5-6 different topics that we could discuss along with related clothing items.
  • We kept researching on our topics to focus on the main points, which eventually led to the writing of our script.
  • We had to keep our script within 5-6 minutes which allowed the model(s) to walk on the runway and for the audience to not get bored.
  • Deciding what we had to say and the time limit was harder than we thought. There was a lot of crucial information that we wanted to include but had to keep only the main points

March (me):

  • In addition to to the Too Hot to Handle research, I was asked to translate the Tagua nut group’s script to possibly present it in Spanish.
  • I received the script the week before and had time to translate it before our dress rehearsal.

    Dr. Mendelson and his friend that showcased in the Tagua Nut presentation

The Day Before:

  • We did a dress rehearsal in class to make sure each presentation was on time and that no group missed important information.
  • Me personally: I researched information about heat stroke/heat exhaustion and presented a script for my classmates to edit. 
  • I translated the script, presented them with any feedback and ran it to see if it was within the time limit. 

Day of event:

  • We got there 3 hours before show time to set up and make sure we didn’t forget anything.
  • We set up the room, music (+ DJ came), the presentation/slides for timing and smoother transition
  • Other than minor microphone issues, each presentation ran smoothly and within the time limit
  • In addition to our fashion show, we let the audience have their own fashion show. I loved how our event was so interactive and hope everyone enjoyed it.

    Our models

Extra information:

0Likes
About Author

Claudia is an Biology graduate student at Georgia Tech. She loves photography, traveling, baking, and swimming. In her spare time she enjoys swimming, watching soccer, exploring new places and hanging out with friends. She is excited to research and learn new things in the world of science.

You May Also Like

Design credit: Nadia
today i learned (til)
Drinks and Science: Science Speakeasy
today i learned (til)
Caffeine in E-Sports
shearwater bird
Articles, today i learned (til)
Marine Birds Fly Into Storms to Survive?
today i learned (til)
Left? Right? Left?

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.