The Body Farm- amazing science or horrible insult?

The front gate of the Body Farm

 

 

What is the Body Farm?

        The Body Farm's official name it the University of Tennessee's Forensic Anthropology Research Facility. The name the "Body Farm" came from Patricia Cornwall's book by the same title which is set there. It was founded in 1980 by Dr. Bill Bass to study human decomposition (1). In his book called "Death's Acre" Dr. Bass talks about how he came up with the idea and place for the Body Farm after a janitor had the unpleasant experience of finding a very dead, smelly, bloated body in his closet were Dr. Bass had left it over the weekend until he could examine it. He decided that he needed a better place to examine dead bodies and do his research than in the basement offices underneath the UT football stadium. He and his research students have since done innumerable useful research projects on various methods of determining time since death, including analyzing chemicals given off by the body and what bugs come to feed off of dead bodies in what order (info from "Death's Acre" by Dr. Bill Bass). They do this by placing dead bodies in various positions, states of dress, and situations all over the Body Farm and observing what happens(1).

 

So what's the controversy?

       The problem arises because many people believe that the research done there is disrespectful of the dead that are being used for the experiments. This is certainly a valid point as they are certainly not being laid out in their best clothing and allowed to decompose in peace in a nice wooden coffin. I can see why someone may have a problem with Uncle Bill being allowed to lie naked in the middle of a field and allowed to rot. As I said before the bodies are in various positions, essentially any position you may find a dead body including those that are generally associated with murder (shallow graves, under concrete, etc.) which I can see not sitting well with some people particularly if you have been raised to show great respect to the dead.

 

Why do I think it is necessary?

      Despite the fact that I will admit I do find it somewhat gruesome ( I mean you are just letting people decompose and from what I hear from my aunt and grandmother who work at the hospital on campus which shares a parking lot with the Body Farm it does get quite smelly in the summer time) I think this is really a very necessary place to have.

                                                                                                                   Dr. Bill Bass

     Knowing time since death based on how the bodies decompose can give you valuable information that can help you solve a case much more easily including identifying a suspect which according to my policing class is the most important factor in solving a case. Not to mention knowing how bodies decompose in certain situations can rule out certain causes of death not consistent with what is found. I also understand from reading various material about the Body Farm that the majority of the bodies at the Body Farm are donated by people after their deaths.  If you choose to donate your body it is your choice and I think no one else should really be able to say anything about it. The few remaining ones that are not donated are bodies that were not claimed by families from the state penitentiary and the morgue ( I do feel a little uneasy about this as after the family and person do not really have a say in this).

      You do have to take into account respect for the dead when doing these experiments. This is something that must be considered in every aspect of forensic science as forensic scientists often work with the dead. When does respect for the dead trump science? At what point is the science just too much? Many people consider what Dr. Bass and his colleagues do desecration of the body. Other forensic scientists may run into this problem when needing to exhume a body to do further testing or when the family of a crime victim believes doing an autopsy will cause their loved one to be unable to go into the afterlife. As a forensic scientist, especially were the dead are concerned, you have to proceed very carefully so as not to end up on the bad side of this slightly grey area.

    

      I think that unless the family strenuously objects, which isn't usually a problem as most of the cadavers used at the Body Farm are donated, science generally should take presidence with some case by case exceptions. I support this so much in fact that I would advocate the starting of body farms in other places in the U.S. After all Tennessee's climate is not the same as say North Dakota's and so bodies will decompose differently. If we really want to expand our knowledge we need to look at different climates. I may sound a bit callous to some people but I agree with Dr. Bass ( when talking about whether or not he will donate his body to the Body Farm) "it is a terrible thing to waste a good skeleton." The Body Farm is an important part of science and needs to be kept around for a good long time.

 

 

       1. http://englishperiodone.wikispaces.com/The+%E2%80%9CBody+Farm%E2%80%9D+Science+or+Sacrilege%3F

 



DNA- Recent studies show it may not be as good a tool as we thought

      

      DNA has become a very powerful tool in forensics in the last few years. Many people have been connected to crimes that had previously gone unsolved and others have been completely cleared of wrongdoing. This is mostly because we assume that each person not only has a unique genome but only has one genome. What if this wasn't the case though? What would that mean for forensics?

What if we don't just have one set of DNA?
      According to the article "DNA Double Take" by Carl Zimmer published in the New York Times, scientist are finding people who have multiple genomes contained in their bodies. Essentially a single person has two sets of DNA. These people, according to the article, are known as chimeras. They can receive the multiple genomes in a number of ways. One way that they may get the second genome is from a twin in the womb from sharing blood vessels. The article talks of a woman who "donated a pint of blood... it turned out some of her blood was Type O and some was Type A." This woman, it turned out, had been a twin and the other blood type present in her body was her twin brother's blood type.

A second way a person may receive a second genome involves women who have been pregnant receiving fetal DNA from their children that integrates itself into the mother's body. In fact one researcher said "It's pretty likely that any woman who has been pregnant is a chimera." One other way that people can end up containing two sets of DNA is through what is called mosiacism. Essentially, the article explains, a cell somewhere in the body mutates drastically and this completely changes the genome of that cell. The cell then replicated resulting in some cells with the original genome and others with the new genome.


So what does that mean for forensics?                                      DNA test
      This could potentially be a bit worrying for forensic scientists especially in cases were DNA evidence is the main source of evidence for the case. It could potentially cause doubt as to the validity of DNA tests and can end up resulting in false positives on some occasions. These finding do cast some doubt as to whether or not DNA is as good a tool as was once thought. However according to Manfred Kayser, a molecular biology professor, "this should not be much of a concern for forensics," since the scientists have other ways of confirming if the DNA they are testing is the correct DNA. The only real problem I can see is that it may make it easier for defense attorneys to challenge DNA tests but hopefully it will not be too big of a problem

Can we trust the source?
     All of the people that contributed to this research and the article itself are highly respected in their field. The author has published numerous scientific articles for the New York Times. He uses scientific language that is accurate but still understandable to the general public, though it is likely that he assumed that the person reading this article is well educated since it is the New York Times and their readers do tend to be more well educated.  Not to mention the New York Times is a very reputable, highly respected publication. The author gives examples of how this phenomenon can occur rather than just stating that it can which does add further credibility to the article.

      The article is well written and grammatically correct which does lend credibility to it. It also does not overly stress one side or the other of the issue. The author is not particularly distressed about either side. He just gives the facts and allows you to draw your own conclusions. There is no emotional appeal to the reader to feel one way or another about this issue. I think this is a good thing when the topic is scientific as it allows the reader to make decisions based on the facts rather than emotion. I would say it is quite trustworthy. Here is the link if you are interested in reading more from the article where I got this information from.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/dna-double-take.html?pagewanted=2&ref=forensicscience

Sniffing out the dead- an amazing innovation in forensic science

        I think that anyone who has ever watched a TV show like CSI or NCIS has probably seen a scene were the police ( investigators, lab techs, etc.) are looking for a body using dogs or some sort of other search method. This is definitely not easy to do particularly if you don't know were to look as there are so many factors that influence the various methods used. Recently Dr. Arpad Vass, who, according to the articles I read, works for the Oak Ridges National Laboratory, has developed a machine called LABRADOR to help with this problem

What is it?
         LABRADOR is short for light weight analyzer for buried remains and decomposition odor recognition. It can be used says Dr. Vass, to detect 30 different classes of chemicals that are omitted by dead, decaying bodies using 12 different sensors located in the end of the apparatus which "looks like a metal detector but contains a box at the end that collects air samples." The article explains that it can be used to "sniff out" dead bodies much like police would with dogs only better.


Does it work?
       In order for this to be a truly viable method it needs to work accurately and sensitively, be easy to use, and actually do what it is supposed to do. According to the article LABRADOR can detect chemical signals at concentrations that cadaver dogs are unable to detect and, according to  Dr. Vass and his colleague's research paper, it is sensitive enough to not only detect the difference between narcotics, explosives, and decaying bodies but can also detect the difference between the decaying body of an animal, in this case a pig, and a decaying human body.


      It has been used in at least one case to find a girl, according to the article, who had been missing since 2001. They were able, using LABRADOR to began digging within 15m. of were she was eventually found. LABRADOR is also lightweight and essentially requires the user to carry it around. According to Dr. Vass's research article it can easily be handled by a single person. I would say based on this that it works well and could eventually be widely used for various things though it is not as of now in wide spread use.


      Dr. Vass also says that LABRADOR can detect concentrations of chemicals, something that a cadaver dog cannot do. A dog can only tell if a chemical is present or not. Knowing the concentration of the chemical in a certain area can make it easier to find the precise location of a dead body. The higher the concentration of the chemicals in an area the more likely the body is to be there. The technology in LABRADOR will make finding an exact location of a body much easier. Knowing the concentration of certain chemicals can also give you an idea of time since death which is very important in any investigation were foul play is suspected. Since LABRADOR can do this it can eliminate some of the extra testing that would have to be done if you were only using cadaver dogs.


How about cost?
        The LABRADOR is extremely inexpensive when you look at the cost of most other forensic equipment. For instance a mass spectrometer, when I looked up prices on Google, could cost as much as a couple hundred thousand dollars. The LABRADOR should cost $1000-$1500 which is pretty cheap when you think about it. This makes it a viable option for even smaller police departments. It also would likely be a cheaper option than buying and caring for multiple cadaver dogs for the duration of their lives.


     Overall I think this is a really neat piece of technology that seems to work really well and with the price being what it is could reasonably be used by a lot of law enforcement agencies to help them solve crimes. I think judging by what I have read that it could possible be used to detect things other than dead bodies such as drugs for instance. I think this is a really neat piece of machinery. I also consider Dr. Vass to be a great person to look at this as I have read of his other research on decomposition and the chemicals it produces at the Body Farm in Knoxville, TN.

Dr. Arpad Vass

Here are the links to the two articles that I looked at if you are interested in more
information:

     http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/three-advances-forensic.html
     https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/231197.pdf

Forensic Science-What's it all about?

      Forensic science is really a multidimensional field. There are so many amazing areas to specialize in: DNA analysis, blood spatter analysis, forensic anthropology, and so many other really neat subjects to specialize in.  You can really pick and choose based on what interests you the most. People in this field do a little bit of every kind of science you could possible imagine: chemistry, biology, and even physics. They are there to help solve the thousands of crimes committed every day and help to bring people who commit crimes to justice.  They serve as expert witnesses at trial, analyze samples from crime scenes, and write reports. They provide a necessary service to the world at large allowing us to solve crimes that would have been impossible before. They even solve puzzles that are thousands of years old, like how King Tut died.
      

       The most amazing thing about forensic science is that in almost every area of it you can take something very small, so small you can hardly even see it and learn so much from it. DNA to the naked eye looks like snot but it can tell you so much about a person: eye color, blood type, what diseases they have, it is truly amazing.
   

       Those who work as forensic scientists must be honest and thorough in their work because what they do impacts the lives of many people. They help to bring peace to a victim of a crime or that victim's family, they help to catch people who have committed crimes, or even show that people who were accused of crimes were actually innocent.

The Body Farm in Knoxville,TN

      People in this field really have to love their work because it is not always glamorous or nice. You very often get very dirty. I read in a book by Dr. Bill Bass, the founder of the Body Farm in Knoxville, TN, about how while working on a case were he needed to clean flesh from bones he boiled the bones on his own kitchen stove and from that day on every time he or his wife would try to cook on the stove it would smell like decaying body parts ( needless to say his wife made him get a new stove). It may not be as glamorous as it is on T.V. but to me forensic science is one of the most amazing and necessary fields you could ever work in

Forensic scientist working at a crime scene