After the judge makes his statement “you are not the biological mother and the children will be placed with their real father”, three children are whisked away screaming for what they have always known as their mother, while police escort a woman in tears out another door never to see her children again because of a biological mystery. This scene was soon going to happen to a few mothers, although the mother in question gave birth to her children science resulted in some questionable evidence. Chimera, to most portrays an image of a mythical beast; however, it is becoming an issue for the justice system and a small percent of people. Genetic chimeras are alternating the legal justice system by questioning biological evidence in court cases
…show more content…
Since Karen had three children of her own, “Karen underwent histocompatibility testing in order to prepare for her kidney transplant. Karen was stunned when, after her test results came back, she was told that two of her three sons were not hers” (Granzen, 2014). Since mistakes can be made or specimens can be mishandled the “Doctors repeated the tests, but the results remained the same: Karen could not genetically be the mother of two of her sons because her sons had a haplotype from an origin other than their mother” (Granzen, 2014). There was a likelihood that the two boys were Karen’s children so “the doctors then took other tissue samples from Karen’s thyroid gland, mouth and hair. The team of doctors found that Karen had one type of DNA in one tissue and another type of DNA in another tissue, including the mysterious haplotype that was found in her two sons” (Granzen, 2014). After a long and tedious process “the doctors concluded that Karen’s differing DNA was the result of tetragametic chimerism, meaning Karen had fused with an unknown embryo during gestation and had retained the differing DNA of that embryo” (Granzen, 2014). All along “Karen was a whole-body chimera, otherwise known as a tetragametic chimera, meaning she resulted from the fusion of four gametes--two eggs and two sperm” (Hutchison, …show more content…
Karen and Lydia both presented as much evidence as possible, proving their maternity, including birth certificates and testimony from an obstetrician, but the courts persistently relied on the DNA evidence and found their stories unbelievable” (Granzen, 2014). With DNA testing being infallible in court cases the legal system is potentially being shaken with the possibilities of chimeras rattling the judicial system. Although these two cases where only affecting government assistance and pre-operation testing, the possibilities that chimeras can have in any case relying on DNA can be thrown out of court. With the word getting out on the possibilities of chimeras and the difficulty confirming it has opened the eyes of many criminals. For instance, a man named Hamilton on a cyclist team was accused of blood doping. “Hamilton argued that the positive test result was due to his “vanishing twin”; stating, therefore, that he was a tetragametic chimera” (Granzen, 2014). Many different doctor’s opinions were taken into consideration, including “the Anti-Doping Agency’s expert, Dr. Ross Brown, who attempted to refute the chimera theories. He testified that human chimeras were exceedingly rare and added that another cyclist on Hamilton’s team also tested positive for blood doping” (Granzen, 2014). With such conflicting views the appeal was doubtful to be effective. “However, using
Since Karen had three children of her own, “Karen underwent histocompatibility testing in order to prepare for her kidney transplant. Karen was stunned when, after her test results came back, she was told that two of her three sons were not hers” (Granzen, 2014). Since mistakes can be made or specimens can be mishandled the “Doctors repeated the tests, but the results remained the same: Karen could not genetically be the mother of two of her sons because her sons had a haplotype from an origin other than their mother” (Granzen, 2014). There was a likelihood that the two boys were Karen’s children so “the doctors then took other tissue samples from Karen’s thyroid gland, mouth and hair. The team of doctors found that Karen had one type of DNA in one tissue and another type of DNA in another tissue, including the mysterious haplotype that was found in her two sons” (Granzen, 2014). After a long and tedious process “the doctors concluded that Karen’s differing DNA was the result of tetragametic chimerism, meaning Karen had fused with an unknown embryo during gestation and had retained the differing DNA of that embryo” (Granzen, 2014). All along “Karen was a whole-body chimera, otherwise known as a tetragametic chimera, meaning she resulted from the fusion of four gametes--two eggs and two sperm” (Hutchison, …show more content…
Karen and Lydia both presented as much evidence as possible, proving their maternity, including birth certificates and testimony from an obstetrician, but the courts persistently relied on the DNA evidence and found their stories unbelievable” (Granzen, 2014). With DNA testing being infallible in court cases the legal system is potentially being shaken with the possibilities of chimeras rattling the judicial system. Although these two cases where only affecting government assistance and pre-operation testing, the possibilities that chimeras can have in any case relying on DNA can be thrown out of court. With the word getting out on the possibilities of chimeras and the difficulty confirming it has opened the eyes of many criminals. For instance, a man named Hamilton on a cyclist team was accused of blood doping. “Hamilton argued that the positive test result was due to his “vanishing twin”; stating, therefore, that he was a tetragametic chimera” (Granzen, 2014). Many different doctor’s opinions were taken into consideration, including “the Anti-Doping Agency’s expert, Dr. Ross Brown, who attempted to refute the chimera theories. He testified that human chimeras were exceedingly rare and added that another cyclist on Hamilton’s team also tested positive for blood doping” (Granzen, 2014). With such conflicting views the appeal was doubtful to be effective. “However, using