DNA and Fingerprints

Author's Note: This is my science essay written to inform you on the good and bad sides of DNA fingerprinting.

Have you ever wondered how the police catch a perpetrator? Well there is and it is a completely safe and easy technique. Instead of using methods of blood testing or trying to get an accurate picture of a criminal, there is an easier way to catch them. It is called DNA fingerprinting.

            First of all, most people know what DNA looks like, but do they know what it is really made of? Most of the time, the answer is no. The swirling backbones are called nucleotides and they are made of a base, sugar, and phosphate. Connecting the two strands are the base pairs. There are two different kinds of base pairs and they are guanine and cytosine, or adenine and thymine. These backbones and base pairs combined make the swirling shape that most of us already know. DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid. As we learned in science class, the DNA is located in the nucleus of a cell. There “The typical fingerprint may have as many as 150 ridge characteristics” (Salter). This is what makes all fingerprints unique. There is not two people that have the same print.

Moving on, DNA is one of the most commonly used sources of evidence from break-ins, murders, or robberies. Lots of times, the criminal does not leave blood behind his/her scandal, so the police go to another option which could likely be fingerprinting. If there is any blood, the case is basically solved but there is the fear of it being contaminated. This means that fingerprinting is very clean and easy. If for some reason you would need to get a person’s fingerprint, there is lots of paperwork you would need to do to get it. Some of this includes lots of fees, time limits, and approval from the person whose print you want. The process of finding the person you are looking for just by getting their DNA is fairly easy. It starts out as the finding of a print. After you collect the evidence, you scan it into a computer that will store it and convert into a binary code (“computer language” of only 1’s and 0’s). Once it is converted, it will be matched to an identical print but if there is no match, it will just be an update to the system.

Lastly, fingerprinting is not the only way of collecting DNA though. Some of the more complicated methods are getting DNA from blood on a piece of broken glass or probably the most complicated way of catching a bad guy, trying to get an accurate picture and track him down. Blood testing is more difficult than fingerprinting because it uses specific amounts of blood instead of just an ink pad and a thumb. “Contamination can influence PCR results, particularly in the absence of proper handling techniques and proper controls for contamination” (Riley). On the other hand when you are looking at security footage of a break in, the burglar might be wearing a mask or hood and you are unable to see his face. If you can’t get an accurate picture, you can’t use the picture technique. Anything the delinquent touched with his/her bare hands will have his/her print on it.

Without fingerprinting technology, the FBI or other police forces would have to resort to challenging and risky techniques to collect DNA. Now that you know the risks and advantages about fingerprinting and some background info on DNA, it might come in handy to know what is happening when a crime scene occurs.

 

Riley, Donald E. DNA Testing: An Introduction For Non-Scientists. 2005.

Choi, Charles. DNA Extractable From Fingerprints. 31 July 2003. 21 March 2012 <http://www.fdiai.org/articles/dna_extractable_from_fingerprint.htm>.

Salter, Debbie. Fingerprinting - an Emerging Technology.

"What is DNA?" 16 April 2012. Genetics Home Reference. 16 April 2012 <http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna>.

Character Development; Katniss Everdeen

Author's Note: this piece is written to improve my score in Character Development and figurative language. It's purpose is to inform you on why Katniss Everdeen of  The Hunger Games is a dynamic character.

As many people know, The Hunger Games and Catching Fire are bestselling  novels written by Suzanne Collins. I have finished the first and second books and I am on the third. I strongly believe that Katniss Everdeen, the main character, is a dynamic character because of many reasons.

First of all, she starts out as an illegal hunter back home in District 12. She did not want much but to keep her family safe and keep them from starving. Later on, she makes a leap of hope to try to save her sister from the dreadful Hunger Games. This early in the series she is already changing to save Prim. She also becomes extremely brave like a real soldier during the training and early stages of this "purposeful" death pit.

Later on, she wins the first Games all on relying on something from her old life; archery. She won because she wasn't afraid to kill an enemy when the time came. Along with Peeta, she had a few months of happiness back at home before she was tossed back into the arena again like a game piece with all other skilled enemies. When she was broke out and taken to the unknown District 13, she agreed to become the Mockingjay.This was her biggest change yet in where I am in the books currently. This was a huge change because she really agreed to lead all the survivors of the resistance to victory over the war against the Capitol. I think she has changed more in the second book than the first and she changed a lot in the first.

Katniss plays one of the biggest parts in the whole series and almost the whole country of Panem relies on her to lead them to victory. If you think about it, this is a planet sized problem for everyone and they blame victory or failure on one person. Overall, Katness is most definitely a dynamic character due to her change from little hometown girl to huge Panem-wide leader.

The Hunger Games; Movie or Book?

Author's Note: This is my District Assessment for the 4th quarter and it is written to improve my score in body paragraphs, Figurative language, and Conclusions.

Over Spring Break, I went and saw The Hunger Games movie because I am loving the series so far. There were many things I liked such as the idea to make an awesome novel into a movie. Also, I did not like a couple things such as the movie makers leaving out Peeta's amputated leg and many events of the actual Games. Comparing the two,the book was my favorite over the movie because of many reasons.

Currently I am on the third book and I think the series is awesome and I don't want it to end. First of all, you need to read book to see the movie. I think this because the movie's transitions are hard to follow if you don't know what is happening from the book. I was even a little confused when watching the movie myself. Next, the moviemakers included most of the important events like Peeta's leg, Rue's death, and Haymitch's drunkenness. Finally the book had way more detail and it was easier to follow because it allowed you to go back and re-read something if you did not understand it.

Although the movie was good, the books were more sophisticated because there is just something about holding a book and feeling like you are becoming a part of it. Like I said before, you absolutely need to read the book before the movie. This is because the events just happen with no warning and it is still a little but hard to follow. Another difference between the two is the fact that (in most movies) the makers of the movie add in scenes of things happening. What I mean is, for example, in the book Seneca Crane was hung and you just caught a few hints that that happened, but in the movie he was locked in a room with the nightlock berries and you experienced it first hand. I envision the books were better because they allowed you to visualize the events while you read while in the movie. If you don't know what event is supposed to be happening, you will be lost.

Moving on, they are similar in more ways than different. Obviously the characters are the same and they act the same, but there is more to a story than just the characters. There is a place where events occur (plot), a climax and most of the time a solution. I say most of the time because in The Hunger Games, there is no solution in the end of the first book. If there is and I am just missing it, it just becomes a new problem later on. Another similarity is the events of the Games. What happens before the games and after the games is the same in book and movie. For example, Peeta and Katniss' big meal with Effie and Cinna, then later on Katniss' conversation with Cinna. I found that the movie had great actors that could actually be the original character from the book if the events actually existed.

To me, this essay is important because I feel it can persuade people to see why I think the novel is better than the movie in most cases but in particularly The Hunger Games. Despite the similarities and differences of the two, the series has become one of my favorites and the movie has moved up into my all-time favorites. On my opinion the movie could be better, but never as good as the book.