Introduction
In STEM, we often spend a great deal of our time investigating scientific concepts in order to understand them better and eventually be able to apply them to a real world scenario. However, for this project we most recently finished, the opposite took place, with us learning concepts through the utilization of a hypothetical real world scenario. Throughout a three week period of time, our class, split up into smaller groups of four, looked into a murder case on San Marin High School campus, concerning the eccentric Carleton Comet and several suspects who could have possibly been his nefarious assassin. During this project, our class carried out certain scientific tests as needed as we progressed with our work. Some of these tests included a fingerprint investigation, DNA fingerprinting, ink chromatography, a karyotype investigation as well as a pedigree investigation, and a closer look into the blood types found on the scene of the crime. Once all of the needed information was found, it was synthesized into one presentation, aimed at trying to successfully argue for the arrest warrant of a suspect of our choice. While the project was taking place, in addition to learning the concepts, our class was fortunate to have professionals who knew vast amounts of information on the topic come in and give us a talk on crime scene investigations. These said experts were legitimate investigators with the Novato Police Department and showed us some good information on fingerprinting, as well as the so called chain of custody they use in their work.
Initially for this project, our group was given a timeline of events that contained the suspects as well important pieces of information regarding the crime. The timeline of the crime scene at hand went as follows:
7:00 p.m. : Carleton Comet escorted Nancy Normal, Theresa Terra, Fred Flimmer, Sam Sophomore and Glen Glee to the picnic site. Although the guests didn’t know it, each of their lives had somehow been affected by Carleton Comet.
7:30 p.m. : The host and guests sat down to a dinner of tomato soup, fresh garden salad, prime rib, baked potato and small talk.
7:35 p.m. : The sky suddenly darkened. The picnic blanket rustled, a glass was dropped, people screamed and Carleton Comet groaned loudly.
7:36 p.m. : The sun returned to show Carleton Comet slumped forward, his face in his bowl and a large steak knife in the back of his neck.
7:40 p.m. : The police are called.
7:55 p.m. : The police arrive.
8:00 p.m. : Carleton Comet is officially pronounced dead at the scene. The knife is bagged and quickly sent to the crime lab. Police interview the guests. Someone attends to Nancy Normal who cut her hand on a bit of broken glass when the sky darkened.
9:30 p.m. : The police lab determined that there were two types of blood on the knife. One belonged to Carleton Comet. The lab reports are enclosed along with important information about all of the Captain’s dinner guests.
Once all of this information was gathered and the tests were conducted, our group decided that the most likely killer was Nancy Normal and there are enough pieces of information available for her to be arrested. My group consisted of Alex Lozada, Daniel Ford, and Simon Moattar, and we decided to show our presentation by setting it up like a mock trial, complete with a judge, bailiff, expert witnesses, and of course a lawyer. Members of the mock trial team were present to judge our work, and served as the grand jury to help provide the needed arrest warrant. Prior to the case being shown, our group created a full script for our courtroom scene and assigned roles. We were successfully able to get the verdict and come up with an arrest warrant for Nancy.
Initially for this project, our group was given a timeline of events that contained the suspects as well important pieces of information regarding the crime. The timeline of the crime scene at hand went as follows:
7:00 p.m. : Carleton Comet escorted Nancy Normal, Theresa Terra, Fred Flimmer, Sam Sophomore and Glen Glee to the picnic site. Although the guests didn’t know it, each of their lives had somehow been affected by Carleton Comet.
7:30 p.m. : The host and guests sat down to a dinner of tomato soup, fresh garden salad, prime rib, baked potato and small talk.
7:35 p.m. : The sky suddenly darkened. The picnic blanket rustled, a glass was dropped, people screamed and Carleton Comet groaned loudly.
7:36 p.m. : The sun returned to show Carleton Comet slumped forward, his face in his bowl and a large steak knife in the back of his neck.
7:40 p.m. : The police are called.
7:55 p.m. : The police arrive.
8:00 p.m. : Carleton Comet is officially pronounced dead at the scene. The knife is bagged and quickly sent to the crime lab. Police interview the guests. Someone attends to Nancy Normal who cut her hand on a bit of broken glass when the sky darkened.
9:30 p.m. : The police lab determined that there were two types of blood on the knife. One belonged to Carleton Comet. The lab reports are enclosed along with important information about all of the Captain’s dinner guests.
Once all of this information was gathered and the tests were conducted, our group decided that the most likely killer was Nancy Normal and there are enough pieces of information available for her to be arrested. My group consisted of Alex Lozada, Daniel Ford, and Simon Moattar, and we decided to show our presentation by setting it up like a mock trial, complete with a judge, bailiff, expert witnesses, and of course a lawyer. Members of the mock trial team were present to judge our work, and served as the grand jury to help provide the needed arrest warrant. Prior to the case being shown, our group created a full script for our courtroom scene and assigned roles. We were successfully able to get the verdict and come up with an arrest warrant for Nancy.
Script
-Nancy involved with fred flimmer
-carleton kills fred’s sister and aunt
-Nancy wants revenge
-carleton kidnapped and murdered her cousin
-she has huntington's
Script:
Judge: Order in the court! Marin county court section C9 is now in session. Judge Lozada presiding in the case of Normal v. California, case number 4033. Attorney Aquino has come here today representing the people. Aquino, what have you come here for today? What are you seeking?
Lawyer: Your Honor, today I am seeking an arrest warrant for Nancy Normal on behalf of the state of California. I have two expert witnesses here to testify.
Judge: Ok, you may begin you opening statement when you please
Lawyer: Thank you your honor.
(Proceed to do the opening)
Lawyer: Your honor, may I have permission to call my first witness up to the stand?
Judge: Yes you may
(simon comes up to the stand)
Ms Mathews as the Bailiff: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Simon: Yes
Lawyer: hello Mr. Moattar
CSI: Hello
Lawyer: what exactly do you do for a living Mr. Moattar?
CSI: I am a crime scene investigator for the Novato Police department. I investigate crime scenes, and I have over 20 years of experience. I was one of the investigators in this case regarding the murder of Carlton Comet.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, what types of information did you collect while working on this specific case?
CSI: I collected multiple pieces of information using evidence found at the crime scene. These were found using ink chromatography, a blood test, a fingerprint test, and a DNA examination.
Lawyer: Excellent. Would you be fine if we displayed these tests for the purpose of the trial?
CSI: Yes, of course
Lawyer: Great. Mr. Moattar, I would first like to direct your attention to Exhibit A. (Show a picture of the fingerprint sample) Mr. Moattar, is this image familiar to you at all?
CSI: Yes, this is the fingerprint we found at the crime scene on a table near where the murders took place. Upon a further analysis, my team and I noticed that the fingerprint had a shape that most closely resembled an arch. We took fingerprints of all the people present at the time and compared them to the fingerprint directly from the crime scene.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, after you looked at the fingerprints, did you determine anyone who these fingerprints most likely belong to?
CSI: Yes, my team and I deduced from the information given to us that the prints probably belong to Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: Besides the fingerprints, were you able to find and examine any other pieces of evidence?
CSI: Yes, my team and I were also able to find a knife spattered with blood at the crime scene, left near where Carlton Comet was lying dead. We also found another sample of blood at the crime scene on a shard of glass, so in all we had two different samples of blood that we eventually analyzed.
Lawyer: Now Mr. Moattar, how were you able to investigate the blood found at the crime scene?
CSI: We mixed samples of blood with a clumping solution to determine what the type of blood was, and we compared these types to the known types of blood of the people at the scene.
Lawyer: (pulls up exhibit B) Mr. Moattar, does this chart look familiar to you at all?
CSI: Yes, this chart is what we used to record all of our data. As you can see, the first sample of blood from crime scene 1 was a type O, and the blood from scene 2 was type A. We were especially interested in investigating Nancy Normal now as her fingerprints had been discovered, and we found that she had type A, matching scene 2, and the type O from scene 1 matched that of Carlton Comet.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, is there any additional information that you were able to gather that you would like to tell us about?
CSI: Yes, on the crime scene I was able to find a letter that read, “You are a dead man”. My team and I ran a full analysis on the letter, and we figured that by looking at the composition of the ink used, we could find out who wrote it.
Lawyer: And why is that?
CSI: Each suspect in this case is known to use a certain pen to write with, so if we figured out what pen wrote the letter, we could figure out who wrote it.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, these are the different ink samples that you took from the crime scene (show exhibit). What can you tell us about them?
CSI: Well, we ran an ink chromatography test on sample pen marks, as well as a pen from the scene. That means that we tried separating the ink into its most basic parts to find out its composition. When we did this, we found out that a certain permanent marker was used to write the letter.
Lawyer: And who do you believe that marker belongs to, Mr. Moattar?
CSI: Nancy Normal
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, before you move off of the stand, is there any last pieces of evidence you would like to present regarding this case?
CSI: Yes, I have one more piece of evidence I would like to talk about. We ran a DNA examination on the blood samples found at the scene, and compared them to samples of certain known suspects. In a DNA examination, just to further explain our methods, we try to examine the small portion of DNA that makes each person unique, isolating it so we can hopefully weed out one culprit.
Lawyer: (open up a new exhibit) From this examination what were you able to find?
CSI: The color band patterns from crime scene 1 matched up with the colors of Carlton, meanwhile the bands of scene 2 matched those of Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: One last question Mr. Moattar, if you were to accuse someone of this horrific crime, who do you believe deserves the blame?
CSI: Based on the evidence shown to me, most definitely Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: Your honor, may the witness be dismissed?
Judge: Yes
Lawyer: Thank you your honor, at this time I would also like to call up my second witness to the stand.
(daniel comes up)
Ms Mathews as Bailiff: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Daniel: Yes
Lawyer: Hello Mr. Ford.
Daniel: Hello
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, what are your qualifications? What do you do for a living, and how have you been involved with this case?
Daniel: Well, I am a professor at UC Berkeley, with my specific field of study being genetics in criminology. I work with chromosomes, karyotypes, pedigrees, and all of that type of stuff that deals with a suspect’s family history. I was called in to help investigate this case due to my large amount of expertise on this subject.
Lawyer: Now Mr. Ford, what types of research did you perform while working on this specific case?
Daniel: The first type of research I did on this case was looking deeper into the types of chromosomes found on the crime scene, and determining who they came from. Samples of specific sets of chromosomes were found on the crime scene that were then put into karyotypes so that they could be further analyzed. We compared these chromosomes to the chromosomes of suspects of the crime, matching up certain similarities with each other.
Lawyer: (show the exhibits) Mr. Ford, these are the karyotypes for the chromosomes found on the crime scene, as well as the chromosomes of suspects. What were you able to find, first and foremost about the crime scene chromosomes.
Daniel: I was able to find that the Chromosome Set from crime scene 1 had XXY syndrome syndrome (explain what XXY syndrome is). On top of this, I was also able to find that the Chromosome Set from crime scene 2 had XXX syndrome (explain what XXX syndrome is).
Lawyer: Compared to the data found from all the suspects, what were you able to find.
Daniel: Most suspects in this case had some form of chromosomal disorder. However, Nancy normal had xxx syndrome, while Carlton had XXY syndrome. I had been doing work with Mr. Moattar from before, and I think it should be noted that we started becoming suspicious at the frequency of which Nancy Normal kept popping up as a suspect.
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, what other information were you able to collect from your research.
Daniel: One of the things that I focused heavily on was the history of all the people involved in the case. I drew out pedigrees throughout this case to track each person, their family members, and any disease that they may have had based on information that I was given.
Lawyer: what were you able to find from these pedigrees?
Daniel: First and foremost, my researched carried me into info regarding a mysterious character named Thomas Sandstone. Thomas had been involved in many relationships, and had even killed two women in a love triangle. Carlton Comet is known to have just come from from jail, and it was also said that he had changed his name, and had previously fathered multiple children. Thus, it makes sense that Sandstone is in fact Comet. Additionally, Sandstone had a son named Fred, however, Fred was embarrassed by the actions of his father, sandstone had killed his sister and aunt, making him change his name to Fred Flimmer. Keeping this in mind, when looking into the story of Nancy Normal, she had in essence been adopted by Norma and Tony Sophomore. Nancy’s adopted cousin, Nadia, had been kidnapped and murdered while Nina, her aunt was having an affair with sandstone. It is my suspicion that Nancy was still angry about this family death and wanted revenge. In addition, Nancy has a crush on Fred Flimmer, the man who disowned his father, Thomas Sandstone, making nancy want to kill him to get the attention of Fred.
Lawyer: is there any more genetic history we should know about?
Daniel: Yes. Nancy had a history of huntington's disease in her family, and she got it as well. Huntington's disease (HD) is a fatal genetic disorder that causes the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the brain. It deteriorates a person's physical and mental abilities during their prime working years and has no cure. However, it should be known that it can tend to cause one to have a volatile personality. Thus, nancy was somewhat mentally unstable, causing her to be more likely to commit the crime.
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, if you had to point the blame at one person, who would you pin the blame on?
Daniel: Most definitely Nancy Normal
Lawyer: Thank you. Your honor, may the witness be excused?
Judge: Yes. Mr. Aquino, when ready, you may proceed with the closing statements.
(do the closing statement)s
-carleton kills fred’s sister and aunt
-Nancy wants revenge
-carleton kidnapped and murdered her cousin
-she has huntington's
Script:
Judge: Order in the court! Marin county court section C9 is now in session. Judge Lozada presiding in the case of Normal v. California, case number 4033. Attorney Aquino has come here today representing the people. Aquino, what have you come here for today? What are you seeking?
Lawyer: Your Honor, today I am seeking an arrest warrant for Nancy Normal on behalf of the state of California. I have two expert witnesses here to testify.
Judge: Ok, you may begin you opening statement when you please
Lawyer: Thank you your honor.
(Proceed to do the opening)
Lawyer: Your honor, may I have permission to call my first witness up to the stand?
Judge: Yes you may
(simon comes up to the stand)
Ms Mathews as the Bailiff: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Simon: Yes
Lawyer: hello Mr. Moattar
CSI: Hello
Lawyer: what exactly do you do for a living Mr. Moattar?
CSI: I am a crime scene investigator for the Novato Police department. I investigate crime scenes, and I have over 20 years of experience. I was one of the investigators in this case regarding the murder of Carlton Comet.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, what types of information did you collect while working on this specific case?
CSI: I collected multiple pieces of information using evidence found at the crime scene. These were found using ink chromatography, a blood test, a fingerprint test, and a DNA examination.
Lawyer: Excellent. Would you be fine if we displayed these tests for the purpose of the trial?
CSI: Yes, of course
Lawyer: Great. Mr. Moattar, I would first like to direct your attention to Exhibit A. (Show a picture of the fingerprint sample) Mr. Moattar, is this image familiar to you at all?
CSI: Yes, this is the fingerprint we found at the crime scene on a table near where the murders took place. Upon a further analysis, my team and I noticed that the fingerprint had a shape that most closely resembled an arch. We took fingerprints of all the people present at the time and compared them to the fingerprint directly from the crime scene.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, after you looked at the fingerprints, did you determine anyone who these fingerprints most likely belong to?
CSI: Yes, my team and I deduced from the information given to us that the prints probably belong to Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: Besides the fingerprints, were you able to find and examine any other pieces of evidence?
CSI: Yes, my team and I were also able to find a knife spattered with blood at the crime scene, left near where Carlton Comet was lying dead. We also found another sample of blood at the crime scene on a shard of glass, so in all we had two different samples of blood that we eventually analyzed.
Lawyer: Now Mr. Moattar, how were you able to investigate the blood found at the crime scene?
CSI: We mixed samples of blood with a clumping solution to determine what the type of blood was, and we compared these types to the known types of blood of the people at the scene.
Lawyer: (pulls up exhibit B) Mr. Moattar, does this chart look familiar to you at all?
CSI: Yes, this chart is what we used to record all of our data. As you can see, the first sample of blood from crime scene 1 was a type O, and the blood from scene 2 was type A. We were especially interested in investigating Nancy Normal now as her fingerprints had been discovered, and we found that she had type A, matching scene 2, and the type O from scene 1 matched that of Carlton Comet.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, is there any additional information that you were able to gather that you would like to tell us about?
CSI: Yes, on the crime scene I was able to find a letter that read, “You are a dead man”. My team and I ran a full analysis on the letter, and we figured that by looking at the composition of the ink used, we could find out who wrote it.
Lawyer: And why is that?
CSI: Each suspect in this case is known to use a certain pen to write with, so if we figured out what pen wrote the letter, we could figure out who wrote it.
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, these are the different ink samples that you took from the crime scene (show exhibit). What can you tell us about them?
CSI: Well, we ran an ink chromatography test on sample pen marks, as well as a pen from the scene. That means that we tried separating the ink into its most basic parts to find out its composition. When we did this, we found out that a certain permanent marker was used to write the letter.
Lawyer: And who do you believe that marker belongs to, Mr. Moattar?
CSI: Nancy Normal
Lawyer: Mr. Moattar, before you move off of the stand, is there any last pieces of evidence you would like to present regarding this case?
CSI: Yes, I have one more piece of evidence I would like to talk about. We ran a DNA examination on the blood samples found at the scene, and compared them to samples of certain known suspects. In a DNA examination, just to further explain our methods, we try to examine the small portion of DNA that makes each person unique, isolating it so we can hopefully weed out one culprit.
Lawyer: (open up a new exhibit) From this examination what were you able to find?
CSI: The color band patterns from crime scene 1 matched up with the colors of Carlton, meanwhile the bands of scene 2 matched those of Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: One last question Mr. Moattar, if you were to accuse someone of this horrific crime, who do you believe deserves the blame?
CSI: Based on the evidence shown to me, most definitely Nancy Normal.
Lawyer: Your honor, may the witness be dismissed?
Judge: Yes
Lawyer: Thank you your honor, at this time I would also like to call up my second witness to the stand.
(daniel comes up)
Ms Mathews as Bailiff: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Daniel: Yes
Lawyer: Hello Mr. Ford.
Daniel: Hello
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, what are your qualifications? What do you do for a living, and how have you been involved with this case?
Daniel: Well, I am a professor at UC Berkeley, with my specific field of study being genetics in criminology. I work with chromosomes, karyotypes, pedigrees, and all of that type of stuff that deals with a suspect’s family history. I was called in to help investigate this case due to my large amount of expertise on this subject.
Lawyer: Now Mr. Ford, what types of research did you perform while working on this specific case?
Daniel: The first type of research I did on this case was looking deeper into the types of chromosomes found on the crime scene, and determining who they came from. Samples of specific sets of chromosomes were found on the crime scene that were then put into karyotypes so that they could be further analyzed. We compared these chromosomes to the chromosomes of suspects of the crime, matching up certain similarities with each other.
Lawyer: (show the exhibits) Mr. Ford, these are the karyotypes for the chromosomes found on the crime scene, as well as the chromosomes of suspects. What were you able to find, first and foremost about the crime scene chromosomes.
Daniel: I was able to find that the Chromosome Set from crime scene 1 had XXY syndrome syndrome (explain what XXY syndrome is). On top of this, I was also able to find that the Chromosome Set from crime scene 2 had XXX syndrome (explain what XXX syndrome is).
Lawyer: Compared to the data found from all the suspects, what were you able to find.
Daniel: Most suspects in this case had some form of chromosomal disorder. However, Nancy normal had xxx syndrome, while Carlton had XXY syndrome. I had been doing work with Mr. Moattar from before, and I think it should be noted that we started becoming suspicious at the frequency of which Nancy Normal kept popping up as a suspect.
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, what other information were you able to collect from your research.
Daniel: One of the things that I focused heavily on was the history of all the people involved in the case. I drew out pedigrees throughout this case to track each person, their family members, and any disease that they may have had based on information that I was given.
Lawyer: what were you able to find from these pedigrees?
Daniel: First and foremost, my researched carried me into info regarding a mysterious character named Thomas Sandstone. Thomas had been involved in many relationships, and had even killed two women in a love triangle. Carlton Comet is known to have just come from from jail, and it was also said that he had changed his name, and had previously fathered multiple children. Thus, it makes sense that Sandstone is in fact Comet. Additionally, Sandstone had a son named Fred, however, Fred was embarrassed by the actions of his father, sandstone had killed his sister and aunt, making him change his name to Fred Flimmer. Keeping this in mind, when looking into the story of Nancy Normal, she had in essence been adopted by Norma and Tony Sophomore. Nancy’s adopted cousin, Nadia, had been kidnapped and murdered while Nina, her aunt was having an affair with sandstone. It is my suspicion that Nancy was still angry about this family death and wanted revenge. In addition, Nancy has a crush on Fred Flimmer, the man who disowned his father, Thomas Sandstone, making nancy want to kill him to get the attention of Fred.
Lawyer: is there any more genetic history we should know about?
Daniel: Yes. Nancy had a history of huntington's disease in her family, and she got it as well. Huntington's disease (HD) is a fatal genetic disorder that causes the progressive breakdown of nerve cells in the brain. It deteriorates a person's physical and mental abilities during their prime working years and has no cure. However, it should be known that it can tend to cause one to have a volatile personality. Thus, nancy was somewhat mentally unstable, causing her to be more likely to commit the crime.
Lawyer: Mr. Ford, if you had to point the blame at one person, who would you pin the blame on?
Daniel: Most definitely Nancy Normal
Lawyer: Thank you. Your honor, may the witness be excused?
Judge: Yes. Mr. Aquino, when ready, you may proceed with the closing statements.
(do the closing statement)s
DNA
DNA, also known as deoxyribose nucleic acid, is a nucleic acid found in the human body that contains all of the genetic information needed for human life. DNA is in a double helix shape and contains a sugar phosphate backbone, which is composed of the sugar ribose and phosphates. Nucleotides attach to the sugar phosphate backbone by way of hydrogen bonds. In order for DNA to replicate, an enzyme called helicase first and foremost comes and unzips the strand of DNA. Then, on the leading strand, primase is added to the open strand to signal for new nucleotides to vacates the area and continue with replication. On the lagging strand, because primase cannot be laid down in the same way due to its direction, it applies primase in fragments, then the enzyme ligase comes in to glue all of the needed pieces together. This all takes place on what is known as a replication fork, and the process is considered semi conserved because half of the new DNA is kept. Because of the fact that the project being done included trying to catch a criminal utilizing DNA, it was vital that we understood all of the concepts relating to DNA, as well as their significance.
Fingerprint
In a crime scene, fingerprinting is often used to try and find a certain culprit. On of the ways that fingerprinting is used that we specifically looked into on this project was via the use of fingerprint dusting. In dusting, a powdered substance is dusted over a surface, with the powder clinging to the fingerprint, thus showing who it may have belonged to. Each fingerprint is unique and belongs to a specific person, yet there are certain similarities between different prints. The three main types of prints are loops, arches, and whorls, and by looking into irregularities in the three, it becomes easier to catch a criminal. Certain fingerprints can be mapped for each of these said irregularities. In this case, we dusted and investigated a fingerprint, finding it to be most closely match to that of Nancy Normal.
Pedigrees and Karyotype
In a crime scene investigation, it is always important to look into family history as well as genetic history, as the two may expose certain motives and even mental instabilities that may have led to a homicide taking place. One of these ways a family history can be discovered is via a pedigree. A pedigree is a drawn out family history that utilizes family connections and known conditions to show who may end up having a certain disease. For example, the pedigrees our groups drew out showed that based on family, connections, it was most likely that Nancy Normal had HUntington’s Disease due to the fact that both of her parents had it. Another way genetic disorders can be found can be seen in the use of Karyotypes. Karyotypes are in essence drawn out charts of all of the chromosomes in a system. For example, since there should be 23 pairs of chromosomes in my body, by karyotype would have 23 pairs drawn out. In the experiment, we were able to find people with extra or irregular chromosomes by looking at the karyotypes, thus determining that they had a disease.
DNA Fingerprint and Ink Chromatography
One of the most vital pieces of evidence found on the crime scene was the presence of a death note, as well as three pens attributed to different suspects. For our case, we figured that if we could find what pen wrote the note, we could find out who killed Carleton Comet. In order to do this, we utilized a process known as ink chromatography. In ink chromatography, a strip of paper with ink on it is suspended over a solvent such as rubbing alcohol. The solvent reacts with the ink, causing the ink to break up into its most basic parts, letting you see its composition. In our case, by looking at the results of chromatography from the pens compared to the paper, we were able to see which one matched up most closely.Another way that our group was able to investigate who did the crime was through something called DNA fingerprinting. DNA fingerprinting looks into the different DNA of different suspects, allowing for the smaller portions of DNA unique to each person to be exposed. We collected DNA from blood through a gel electrophoresis process, and found that the DNA collected from the scene most closely resembled that of Nancy Normal.
Mutations |
Different syndromes and diseases |
In DNA, random changes may take place that cause certain biological changes later on. These changes are known as mutations, and are most often carried out during the process of replication. When a mutation takes place, one of the proteins utilized is changed and its function can be impacted in the future. These mutations can at times either be positive or negative. One type of mutation that our group looked at was a deletion mutation, where an entire sequence of DNA is deleted, causing a change. An example of the deletion can be seen in the condition Cystic Fibrosis. Other types of mutation include, missense, nonsense, and substitution.
|
Marfan syndrome: a genetic disease that impacts the usage of the body's connective tissue
Huntington's disease: A dominant disease that causes the breakdown of nerve cells in the brain, sometimes causing metal instability Down syndrome: A chromosomal disorder due to the presence of an extra 23rd chromosome. It can cause developmental delays XYY syndrome: a condition where a male has an extra Y chromosome, causing extreme height, acne, among others XXX syndrome: a genetic disorder in females where there is an extra x, causing larger than average height |
Definitions
Allele: The different types of one sort of gene
Gene: The DNA coding for one trait
Chromosome: Genetic information stored in a safe manner
Phenotype: How the traits show up and are expressed
Genotype:The genetic makeup of something
Homozygous: When a genotype is composed o the same alleles
Heterozygous: When a genotype has different alleles
Dominant: If present, trait will always be expressed
Recessive: trait must be dominant to be expressed
Co dominant: No dominant traits, so phenotype has both
Incomplete dominant: Phenotype is a mix of non dominant trait
Genetic Variation: Differences of the same trait
Haploid: A cell with one set of genetic material
Diploid: A cell with two sets of the same genetic info
Gene: The DNA coding for one trait
Chromosome: Genetic information stored in a safe manner
Phenotype: How the traits show up and are expressed
Genotype:The genetic makeup of something
Homozygous: When a genotype is composed o the same alleles
Heterozygous: When a genotype has different alleles
Dominant: If present, trait will always be expressed
Recessive: trait must be dominant to be expressed
Co dominant: No dominant traits, so phenotype has both
Incomplete dominant: Phenotype is a mix of non dominant trait
Genetic Variation: Differences of the same trait
Haploid: A cell with one set of genetic material
Diploid: A cell with two sets of the same genetic info
Reflection
While I found the overall concept of genetics used throughout this project to be rather captivating, I was a bit perturbed by the way the project of this unit was set up. While I do understand the reasoning behind the “Learn as you go” approach utilized in this project, I found it a bit confusing at times as I found myself aimlessly fumbling through what I was supposed to do. I feel that a more formal teaching session prior to the project as a whole would have been more beneficial to me specifically, but I think this is really just a matter of personal preference. That being said, once I got over this hump, the project was rather enjoyable. The amount of connections that I was able to make as I moved along was highly rewarding and made me feel truly engrossed in my work. At the same time, the investigations taking place were extremely hands on, which made the work as a whole more captivating. It was nice to see the real world applications of STEM concepts, and while this hypothetical situation was indeed a bit out there, it truly shows how STEM is used in various aspects of everyday life, not just exclusively inside a laboratory.
That being said, I think I was able to do many things well on this project and specifically improve in numerous areas throughout. This project, since we were left largely to our own devices, gave me a great deal of time to ponder the work that I specifically wanted to achieve, and it set me very clear benchmarks and goals based on how I wanted the overall quality of our presentation to pan out. One of these such areas where I was definitely able to expound upon during the project was in the area of creativity. In other projects in the past, I have often focused less on the creative aspect, for the most part making sure that my work is very technical, displaying all of the needed graphs, data, information, and the like. While I was still highly engaged in the data side of this project considering that many tests were in deed taken and many observations were made, I cared a lot more this time about making our presentation good. Ms. Mathews specifically reminded us about how we should make our work highly convincing, and I definitely took these words of advice to heart in creating the compilation of our information. A specific example of this can be seen in how I organized my group to dress up and act out an entire mock trial situation. This shows how I was willing to think deeper into tways that would make our information captivating, while also relaying all needed information in a clear and concise manner. Our scripting and overall idea that I was able to put together helped add a greater sense of authenticity and originality to our work that made it stand out.
Another area that I believe I personally did well in during this project was personally managing my individual work ethic. In other projects, I have never slacked off, however, I have tried just doing over the bare minimum to say that I was over achieving. For this project, I went in with the mindset that I was going to perform on an even higher level, thus allowing me to have higher quality work and forcing me to up my game so to speak. An example of this can be seen when I personally created the script for my groups presentation, as I wanted ours to be the best of the best. I knew that it would require extra work, so I continued to grind it out so we could make sure ours was up to our standards.
That being said, there are also some definite areas I need to work on for later projects. One of these such areas is delegating work to my other team members. Throughout the project I found myself doing a majority of the work, not because my group mates were incompetent, but because I would not give them anything to do. For example. My members would often ask if I needed help on the presentation, to which I would often respond no, giving them nothing to do and lessening their contributions. In the future, to improve this, I will do my best to step away at times and trust my teammates that they will be able to create good work.
Another area that I would like to work on is not being a distraction to my group mates. My group mates would sometimes play games on their computers and socialize, and instead of encouraging them to do work, I would often continue on the conversation, thus encouraging them further to get off task. For example, Simon would occasionally play computer games, and I would encourage him to get an even higher score each time. To solve this problem in the future, I could instead encourage diligent work and always check in with my team to make sure they are doing fine.
That being said, I think I was able to do many things well on this project and specifically improve in numerous areas throughout. This project, since we were left largely to our own devices, gave me a great deal of time to ponder the work that I specifically wanted to achieve, and it set me very clear benchmarks and goals based on how I wanted the overall quality of our presentation to pan out. One of these such areas where I was definitely able to expound upon during the project was in the area of creativity. In other projects in the past, I have often focused less on the creative aspect, for the most part making sure that my work is very technical, displaying all of the needed graphs, data, information, and the like. While I was still highly engaged in the data side of this project considering that many tests were in deed taken and many observations were made, I cared a lot more this time about making our presentation good. Ms. Mathews specifically reminded us about how we should make our work highly convincing, and I definitely took these words of advice to heart in creating the compilation of our information. A specific example of this can be seen in how I organized my group to dress up and act out an entire mock trial situation. This shows how I was willing to think deeper into tways that would make our information captivating, while also relaying all needed information in a clear and concise manner. Our scripting and overall idea that I was able to put together helped add a greater sense of authenticity and originality to our work that made it stand out.
Another area that I believe I personally did well in during this project was personally managing my individual work ethic. In other projects, I have never slacked off, however, I have tried just doing over the bare minimum to say that I was over achieving. For this project, I went in with the mindset that I was going to perform on an even higher level, thus allowing me to have higher quality work and forcing me to up my game so to speak. An example of this can be seen when I personally created the script for my groups presentation, as I wanted ours to be the best of the best. I knew that it would require extra work, so I continued to grind it out so we could make sure ours was up to our standards.
That being said, there are also some definite areas I need to work on for later projects. One of these such areas is delegating work to my other team members. Throughout the project I found myself doing a majority of the work, not because my group mates were incompetent, but because I would not give them anything to do. For example. My members would often ask if I needed help on the presentation, to which I would often respond no, giving them nothing to do and lessening their contributions. In the future, to improve this, I will do my best to step away at times and trust my teammates that they will be able to create good work.
Another area that I would like to work on is not being a distraction to my group mates. My group mates would sometimes play games on their computers and socialize, and instead of encouraging them to do work, I would often continue on the conversation, thus encouraging them further to get off task. For example, Simon would occasionally play computer games, and I would encourage him to get an even higher score each time. To solve this problem in the future, I could instead encourage diligent work and always check in with my team to make sure they are doing fine.