ArticleForensic science, medicine, and pathology2010
The use of DNA identification in prosecuting wildlife-traffickers in Australia: do the penalties fit the crimes?
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unlocking the Genetic Identity of EndangeredGenes · 2024Article
- DNA barcoding as a tool for robust identification of cervids of India and its utility in wildlife forensics.Mitochondrial DNA. Part B, Resources · 2018Article
- Forensic species identification of large macaws using DNA barcodes and microsatellite profiles.Molecular biology reports · 2012Article
- Combating wildlife crime.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of genetic identification techniques in wildlife forensic investigations has increased significantly in recent years. The utilization of DNA is especially important when species identification using other methods are inconclusive. Australia has strict laws against illegal importation of wildlife as well as laws to protect its unique biodiversity from pests and diseases of quarantine concern. Two separate case studies in which genetic identification was essential for species identification are presented-the first involved illegally held shark fins, the second illegally imported live bird eggs. In the latter case genetic identification enabled charges to be laid for illegal importation of CITES Appendix I species. Australian laws allow for some of the highest penalties for illegal trade of wildlife compared to other countries, however only a fraction of cases are prosecuted and penalties applied to date have been lower than the maximum permitted. Both of the reported cases resulted in fines, and one in imprisonment of the offender, which provides a persuasive precedent for future prosecutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20640536What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.