Why did so many people not comply with evidence – based guidelines and precautions set during the Pandemic? Science implies that it may be due to Mirror Neurons!

Do you remember those days of the Covid – 19 Pandemic? Schools were shut down. Zoom meetings were the norm. Graduation parties, birthdays, and weddings all felt like another era. But, worst of all, the number of people who succumbed to this virus and lost their lives was just horrific. More people died from Covid, than during 9/11 or World War 2. Those people were brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, aunts, and uncles. Each of them meant something special to someone else. Perhaps, the saddest part of it is that each of these deaths could have been prevented if some simple measures had been taken, such as social distancing and mask wearing. However, for many reasons, a significant portion of Americans did not take these precautions. Now research has come up with a reason for why that might be the case, Mirror Neurons!

Mirror Neurons are not always talked about as frequently as certain other types of neurons. However, the reality is that they are actually quite significant. For instance, did you know that Mirror Neurons are the reason why we flinch when someone gets a papercut? Did you know that they are the reason why we cringe when someone does something embarrassing on stage or makes a mistake during a presentation? Did you know that they are the reason why a baby cries when another baby in the room also cries? Have you ever wondered why we feel like giving someone a hug when they are having a tough day, and are distraught and dejected about something? The answer is, once again, Mirror Neurons! The point is that Mirror Neurons are extremely significant, when it comes to feeling empathy for other people, and stepping into other people’s shoes. They are the gateway that enables us to get out of our own world, and experience another person’s world in the way in which they see it!

However, as with everything, you can imagine that there are problems when this Mirror Neuron System does not work. There are a multitude of factors that can cause someone’s Mirror Neurons to be wired differently, such as genetics, culture, circumstances in the environment (i.e, the family or the school environment), etc. One of the most prominent examples of a change in the Mirror Neuron network has been in those with Autism spectrum disorder. For instance, those with Autism have defects in their network of Mirror Neurons that cause the neurons to work differently or transmit messages to each other, in a different way. The authors of this research study on Autism believe that this could be a possible reason, as to why people with Autism are not able to understand and connect with other people’s’ problems as well, and have as much emotional attachment.

From other studies and a bit of extrapolation, it has been speculated that this same change in the Mirror Neuron Network explains a majority of Americans lackadaisical attitude towards the Pandemic. The only difference is that the Neuron Networks do not differ due to genetic factors, but simply due to cultural and environmental factors. Scientists speculate that because many Americans live in a country, where there has not always been so much hardship, where there has been significant freedom, where getting clean food and water has not been a worry, where getting quality education has not been a worry, their Mirror Neurons are wired to fire in a specific way, or a specific sequence that is different from those who have had to live through many tough times, and have had to have the courage to deal with extremely tough times! Put another way, scientists think that because many Americans have not had to encounter as significant levels of hardship as other individuals living in other parts of the world, the neural pathways in their brain have been programmed in such a way that they never think about the situations and hardships that other people in society have. They compare it to muscle memory. For instance, when you type on a computer enough you learn to type certain words and sentences without even looking at the keyboard anymore. They believe that the same concept applies to the brain’s Mirror Neurons. When exposed to more challenges, the Mirror Neurons learn to deal with those challenges more effectively. On the other hand, when life is going mostly good and challenges are suddenly thrown, those Mirror Neurons have an extremely difficult time accustoming to that whole reality.

So don’t get me wrong, there still are likely many explanations for why America’s response to the Pandemic was significantly less of a success than other countries around the world. It could have been due to the example set by our government. It could have been due to America’s individualist vs collectivist culture. It could have been due to how polarized this country is. However, I hope you left this article with another perspective, and understood that their likely is a biological basis to it to. Many Americans living in these generations simply did not have to deal with significant challenge until now, and their brains just had a difficult time figuring out how to deal with it and cope with it!

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.