Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20593251›Full record

ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2010

Forensic science, genetics and wildlife biology: getting the right mix for a wildlife DNA forensics lab.

Rob Ogden

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Forensic science, medicine, and pathology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Resolving theForensic science international. Synergy · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Combating wildlife crime.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2010
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Rob OgdenTRACE Wildlife Forensics Network, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, Edinburgh, UK. rob.ogden@tracenetwork.org

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wildlife DNA forensics is receiving increasing coverage in the popular press and has begun to appear in the scientific literature in relation to several different fields. Recognized as an applied subject, it rests on top of very diverse scientific pillars ranging from biochemistry through to evolutionary genetics, all embedded within the context of modern forensic science. This breadth of scope, combined with typically limited resources, has often left wildlife DNA forensics hanging precariously between human DNA forensics and academics keen to seek novel applications for biological research. How best to bridge this gap is a matter for regular debate among the relatively few full-time practitioners in the field. The decisions involved in establishing forensic genetic services to investigate wildlife crime can be complex, particularly where crimes involve a wide range of species and evidential questions. This paper examines some of the issues relevant to setting up a wildlife DNA forensics laboratory based on experiences of working in this area over the past 7 years. It includes a discussion of various models for operating individual laboratories as well as options for organizing forensic testing at higher national and international levels.

Indexed as

DNA FingerprintingAnimalsAnimals, WildBudgetsCommerceConservation of Natural ResourcesCooperative BehaviorCrimeFinancing, OrganizedForensic SciencesHumansInternational CooperationLaboratoriesMedical Laboratory PersonnelModels, OrganizationalPrivate Sector

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.