dna and dna evidence 115manager draw the line as to how much evidence to test? Importantly, how
will reference DNA material for comparisons with the victims be obtained?
And lastly, how does the case manager mitigate unrealistic expectations given
the exaggerated reputation DNA analysis enjoys regarding turnaround time
and the belief that the analyst obtains definitive results in every case?7.4.1 Planning
The proper response to a mass fatality incident starts well before the event
happens. If the odontologist is involved in his jurisdiction’s disaster plan-
ning process, he should broach the need for planning and coordination for
a DNA response capacity with one or more government or private forensic
DNA laboratories. Federal, state, and local government laboratories operate
on very tight budgets that are tied directly to current-day political and
legislative priorities, notwithstanding their busyness with respect to ongoing
casework. Although appropriations will rise and fall, no government labo-
ratory is funded to maintain excess capacity in the off chance that a mass
fatality incident might occur in the future. In a like manner, commercial
laboratories have a profit margin to maintain, and although some are quite
good at expanding capacity on short notice, there will generally be a delay
and some need for immediate funding to cover the expenses of a productivity
surge. Meeting with laboratory representatives to confirm their willingness
to be part of a mass fatality contingency is essential. If the laboratory were
geographically nearby, it would be prudent to inquire about their continuity
of operations plan (COOP). In some circumstances, the very same disaster
that they plan to help address could compromise their own facility, and thus
the ability to support any relief effort.
One very important topic for discussion with the DNA laboratory dur-
ing the preevent planning stage includes clarifying the types of samples (soft
tissues , bones, teeth, blood, swabs, etc.) that laboratory personnel are trained
to handle. For example, the numbers of laboratories that have little or no
experience extracting DNA from bones or teeth might surprise planners.
Although teeth are not generally the sample of choice because in most cases
the human remains are found in a reasonable time after the event, at least
one historical over-the-water incident culminated in over 175 teeth samples
being submitted for DNA analysis after an extended period of recovery. If a
laboratory’s throughput capacity and technical procedures do not reconcile
with the likely disaster scenarios, the jurisdictional planners should engage
additional DNA laboratory resources. If more than one laboratory is included
in the disaster plan, authorities should host a meeting between technical
representatives so that communication, evidence transfer, data interpreta-
tion, anticipated expenses, and turnaround times, as well as compatibility of
typing systems and instrumentation, are agreed upon well in advance.30–33