Promote DNA Technology, Panel Is Urged : Law: National Academy of Sciences is told that its 1992 report paved the way for legal attacks on test results. More positive support is recommended.

A National Academy of Sciences panel was urged Friday to stress the positive aspects of DNA technology in its next report, on grounds that the academy’s 1992 study gave criminal defense lawyers unjustified reason to attack DNA test results in court.

At the first of a series of hearings to be conducted by the panel, authorities who deal in physical evidence--including an FBI laboratory official--said that the scientific community is in general agreement on the validity of DNA testing, even though some judges and defense attorneys have adopted what DNA advocates described as an exaggerated view of its shortcomings.

Keith Inman, head of the California Assn. of Criminalists in Oakland, told the panel that the academy’s 1992 report--which raised concerns about DNA testing--has assisted defense lawyers, perhaps unintentionally. Inman said scientific disputes “are perceived by the courts as a lack of consensus,” causing judges to mistrust all scientists.

Through use of so-called DNA fingerprinting, or DNA typing, it is possible to match an individual with biological evidence--such as blood, skin, hair or semen--gathered at a crime scene. The technique is based on the fact that the genetic pattern carried in a molecule of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, in every cell is unique for each person, except identical twins.

However, the methods used to distinguish one person’s DNA from all others are not yet as fully developed as other means, such as fingerprint analysis.

Although the concept is accepted, defense attorneys often challenge DNA results on the basis of flawed testing procedures and the fact that the testing is not precise enough to pinpoint a particular defendant. If properly done, the testing will give a probable identification in terms of 1 in 10,000, for example.

In their report two years ago, the academy’s scientists supported the controversial technique but called for higher standards for laboratories and personnel performing the procedure.

Inman said he hoped the academy would endorse DNA technology as providing “accurate, reliable and meaningful information.”

The academy’s Committee on DNA Forensic Science, which is planning to issue an updated report on DNA technology by next summer or fall, did not indicate which way it is leaning. The subject, of increasing interest to the legal community as well as to scientists and criminologists, is expected to be highlighted by upcoming testimony in the O.J. Simpson trial--where the DNA testing of blood samples found at the crime scene has been called into question by the defense.

Frederick Millar, an expert with the California attorney general’s office, told the panel Friday that the problem for prosecutors in murder and rape cases is that “courts need scientific conclusions--not just information, but clear and unambiguous conclusions.” For this reason, the legal admissibility of DNA evidence still remains unsettled in California and some other states, he noted.

Making a similar point, Ivan Balazs, who runs a private testing facility in Connecticut, said the panel might want to emphasize that DNA technology can provide “strong circumstantial evidence pointing in a certain direction” without getting involved in a statistical morass over probabilities.

“I would prefer a simple statement to arguing about whether the probability in a certain case is 1 in 1 million or 1 in 1 trillion,” Balazs said.

In an oblique reference to defense attorneys, Harold Deadman, a leading FBI expert in DNA testing, said the panel should remember that “not everyone in the legal system wants to resolve these issues. There are always those who will testify against DNA results.”

Howard Coleman, president of a Seattle laboratory, complained that the 1992 study “became the Bible for attacking DNA.” Robin Cotton, another private laboratory official, drew laughter in agreeing that “information is handled far differently in the courtroom than at a scientific meeting.”

Most of the testimony Friday was from DNA advocates, but another hearing is planned next spring. An official of the National Assn. of Criminal Defense Lawyers said it wants to present its views then.

Paul Levine, representing the association, told a reporter that he hoped the panel would not back away from its 1992 view calling for independent certification of private laboratories.

The defense lawyers group believes the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the National Institutes of Health and other scientific units, should be in charge of this certification rather than the FBI, as called for in this year’s anti-crime bill, Levine said.