Close
today i learned (til)

What a cat-astrophia! Diving into the GT Cat Community – Pro or Against Cats?

April 11, 2025

This article was made in collaboration with Rachel Weng.

Tucked among the brick pathways, buzzing scooters, and campus fields of Georgia Tech is a quieter, fuzzier community. These consist of those with soft paws and watchful eyes. The Georgia Tech Campus Cats have become quite a beloved icon of the Institute in addition to Buzz and the Ramblin’ Wreck. They have quickly gained popularity among the students and many have started to care for them. While these cats may charm students and campus pedestrians, they also affect the urban ecology and species management.

The Georgia Tech Campus Cats Program started in 2001 with a mission to humanely manage the feral cat population on campus. They do so through a method called a trap, neuter, and release (TNR) program (Budd, 2024). Volunteers trap the cats, get them spayed or neutered, and then return them to their original location. This method helps control the population while allowing the cats to live out their lives in familiar territory. Over the years, the program has grown into a tight-knit community of students, staff, and alumni committed to the well-being of these feline residents (Budd, 2024).

Since Fall 2023, Campus Cats have become more active and involved in supplying food and water. According to data gathered through iNaturalist, the most common cat sightings have been East campus with 14 sightings, Tech tower with 11 sightings, Central campus with 8 sightings, and Tech Parkway with 8 sightings. These are followed by West campus and the retention pond with 6 sightings. And lastly, the recycling area with 4 sightings, and the student center with 2 sightings.

map of cat sightings on gt campus
An overview map of cat sightings around GT

Feeding stations are often placed around areas the cats are sighted in and monitored to ensure they stay healthy without becoming overly dependent on humans. Volunteers are encouraged to post on the iNaturalist community page and follow ethical practices to minimize environmental impact. And come springtime, aka “kitten season,” the population can temporarily increase as new litters appear, aligning with the national trend of increased feline births due to longer daylight hours and hormonal cycles (Mulkey, 2024). 

Unfortunately, as lovable as they are, free-roaming cats are considered invasive species, and known as non-native animals that can disrupt ecosystems. Studies show that domestic and feral cats kill billions of birds, mammals, and reptiles each year in the United States alone (Arnold, 2023). Even well-fed cats may instinctively hunt, which threatens local wildlife, especially in urban greenspaces like Georgia Tech’s EcoCommons and Retention Pond areas.

This creates a paradox: the cats are part of the Georgia Tech experience, yet they challenge the ecological balance. The TNR strategy used by the Campus Cats Program helps address this issue. Research into TNR programs shows promising results. For example, two Australian TNR studies showed that there was a 30% reduction in cat numbers over 2 years, and a 50% reduction over 5 years (Spehar & Wolf, 2019). This highlights TNR’s potential effectiveness when consistently implemented. However, the success of TNR often depends on the percentage of cats sterilized and the community cooperation to be effective. This makes Georgia Tech’s ongoing effort important to long-term population control.

If you spot a cat on campus, you should try saying hello from a distance, especially if you are allergic, but don’t try to pet or feed them unless you’re a trained volunteer. You could also volunteer with the Campus Cats Program to help with feeding, data tracking, or TNR operations by joining their GroupMe – GT Cat Pics. Or if you feel particularly attached to a campus cat or multiple, consider adopting! Some of the cats are friendly or young enough to be rehomed. Listings can be found on the GT Campus Cats website at https://www.gtcampuscats.org/. Lastly, know that you can spread awareness simply by educating others about responsible cat ownership to help prevent more stray animals.

Georgia Tech’s cats remind us that even in a high-tech environment, nature finds a way to sneak in. It lives in how we understand and coexist with all living things, even those with whiskers and tails.

Sources Cited

American Bird Conservancy. (n.d.). Cats | Invasives. American Bird Conservancy; American Bird Conservancy. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from https://abcbirds.org/threat/cats-and-other-invasives/

Arnold, C. (2023, June 6). Cat-astrophe. NOEMA; Berggruen Institute. https://www.noemamag.com/cat-astrophe

Budd, A. (2024, June 3). Cat-alysts of community: Georgia tech campus cats | news center. Georgia Tech News Center . https://news.gatech.edu/features/2024/05/cat-alysts-community-georgia-tech-campus-cats

Campus cats list. (n.d.). Georgia Tech Campus Cats. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from https://www.gtcampuscats.org/campus-cats-list

Georgia tech cat sightings. (n.d.). iNaturalist. Retrieved April 7, 2025, from https://www.inaturalist.org/projects/georgia-tech-cat-sightings

Mulkey, S. K. (2024, March 18). Kitten season is out of control. Are warmer winters to blame? Grist. https://grist.org/science/kitten-season-animal-shelter-cat-wildlife/

Wolf, P. J., Rand, J., Swarbrick, H., Spehar, D. D., & Norris, J. (2019). Reply to crawford et al.: Why trap-neuter-return(Tnr)  is an ethical solution for stray cat management. Animals : An Open Access Journal from MDPI, 9(9), 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090689

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Concussions in NCAA Divisions
Articles, Field Notes, today i learned (til)
A Spotlight on Black Licorice and its Darker Side
The Tile Game
today i learned (til)
How to become an expert at 2048!
DIY, today i learned (til)
LaTeX: A Typesetting Guide

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.