"CSI": Haven for Junkscience?

[Shane Costello]

In the past week I've started watching both "CSI" and "CSI Miami". While on on level I've found them to be enjoyable progamming, on another level the shows are making me uneas. Take the episode of "CSI Miami" I saw last night. In this episode David Caruso's character was investigating an SUV wreck that resulted in the death of a young pregnant women. To cut a long story short her lover was strongly suspected of murdering her because she wouldn't give up the baby (his) she was carrying. The embryo had been removed as part of the autopsy, and during the interrogation of the prime suspect Caruso held up a picture of a two year old girl. Trying to bring some psychological pressure to bear, he told the PS that this is what his daughter would have looked like on her second birthday. He claimed this image was generated using the foetal DNA fingerprint.

At first I thought this was just a ruse, but at the end it turned out that this was indeed supposed to be a picture generated from a DNA fingerprint. In reality this isn't possible. Firstly DNA can't tell us anything about the environmental factors affecting the gene expression behind muscle and bone development. We also know very little about the complex interaction between genetic and environmental factors that's behind the development of physical characteristics.

Another thing was the absence of protective gear other than surgical gloves during forensic examinations. Surely disposable overalls and hairnets are obligatory, especially since fragments of hair and clothes fibres can be vital? I mean, we don't want the investigators hairs and fibres getting mixed up in there?

So what does everyone else think? Does "CSI" present a scientifically accurate representation of forensic science? If not, then isn't there something fundamentally wrong with a series centered on the scientific investigation of crime propounding fallacies?

 

[Ladewig]

My favorite part is where they search the database for a fingerprint match and the computer screen briefly flashes every fingerprint in the database until it finds the one that matches.

 

[Thanz]

I don't think that you can take the "science" in these shows too seriously. The investigators jump to so many unfounded conclusions it is laughable. It is an entertaining show, but some of the stuff is very hard to swallow.

Two pet peeves:

1. Turn on some damn lights already! Why are they forever doing forensic science in the dark?

2. I don't care about the personal lives of the investigators. I don't care about Grisso's hearing, etc. Focus on the investigation. The rest is just filler and detracts from the show.

 

[BPSCG]

I don't go to the movies to get a history lesson, because I know they make things up in the interest of making the story more interesting. So why would I watch TV to get a science lesson?

 

[BobK]

snip...
Two pet peeves:

1. Turn on some damn lights already! Why are they forever doing forensic science in the dark?

2. I don't care about the personal lives of the investigators. I don't care about Grisso's hearing, etc. Focus on the investigation. The rest is just filler and detracts from the show.

That #2 is a great idea! Cut out the 20 min. of personal stuff and add another 20 min. of commercials.

 

[bangdazap]

I don't go to the movies to get a history lesson, because I know they make things up in the interest of making the story more interesting. So why would I watch TV to get a science lesson?

Fiction affects the way people view reality, like it or not...

 

[c0rbin]

I really enjoy the show. Whether the science is 100% accurate or not, it glorifies smart people, not people who kick in doors or use guns.

CSI: Miami sounds a little different than Las Vegas, which is where I get my impressions from.

I am all for TV shows where the hero is a person who uses his/her brain to solve a problem.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It wouldn't make it very exciting if they talked with masks on all the time.

Anyway, I think the term junkscience isn't even appropriate. The term fiction is though.

 

[EdipisReks]

I don't think that you can take the "science" in these shows too seriously. The investigators jump to so many unfounded conclusions it is laughable. It is an entertaining show, but some of the stuff is very hard to swallow.

Two pet peeves:

1. Turn on some damn lights already! Why are they forever doing forensic science in the dark?

2. I don't care about the personal lives of the investigators. I don't care about Grisso's hearing, etc. Focus on the investigation. The rest is just filler and detracts from the show.

point one: no. the darkness gives mood.

point two: if all you want is the investigation, turn off your tv and go read a forensics text book. the people are what makes it interesting. the personal dynamics. was Star Trek about the technobabble (in pre Berman/Bragga times, i mean)? no. it was about the people. as is CSI, when you boil it down.

about the bad science, sheesh people, this is a fictional drama. the science is better than in most shows, at least.

 

[EdipisReks]

It wouldn't make it very exciting if they talked with masks on all the time.

Anyway, I think the term junkscience isn't even appropriate. The term fiction is though.

 

[Segnosaur]

I agree with most of the posters here... Its an interesting show which shows people using their brains to solve problems (which is good). Some bad science, some acceptable.

I know some things are done for dramatic purposes; 'finger print searches' showing each print is one; the fact that DNA tests come back almost immediately (as opposed to taking days/weeks) is another.

There have been 2 episodes of CSI (classic) which I thought went too far though...
- The one where Grissom let a psychic into a crime scene when he 'saw' the crime take place
- The one where he was investigating the death of someone at a school for the deaf... He used some sort of brain function detector to tell if the student was guilty, because somehow his brain functions would change if it was a scene that he had seen before (almost like a lie detector)

 

[T'ai Chi]

A good book is "Crime Scene", by Larry Ragle.

It talks about what crime scene investigation is really like.

 

[EdipisReks]

I agree with most of the posters here... Its an interesting show which shows people using their brains to solve problems (which is good). Some bad science, some acceptable.

I know some things are done for dramatic purposes; 'finger print searches' showing each print is one; the fact that DNA tests come back almost immediately (as opposed to taking days/weeks) is another.

There have been 2 episodes of CSI (classic) which I thought went too far though...
- The one where Grissom let a psychic into a crime scene when he 'saw' the crime take place
- The one where he was investigating the death of someone at a school for the deaf... He used some sort of brain function detector to tell if the student was guilty, because somehow his brain functions would change if it was a scene that he had seen before (almost like a lie detector)

those brain wave detectors are real, though i don't know if they really work. a friend of mine works for a company that builds them and sells them to various police departments and government agencies, though he isn't involved with the particular product. apparently, the theory is that when someone is shown something that they have seen before, part of the brain will fire due to recognition. this can be picked up by the machine which indicates that the person has seen previously what was shown to them.

 

[Thanz]

point one: no. the darkness gives mood.

Maybe. But there was one scene in which two of the investigators were looking for cut pieces of film that were thrown out by a film lab. So, out behind the building, at night, in the rain, they dump out the film stock and start looking. As if they wouldn't take it back to the lab (or at least inside) and examine it properly. It is times like these, that don't pass the "Aw, come on!" test, that detract from the show. Too much mood, I guess.

point two: if all you want is the investigation, turn off your tv and go read a forensics text book. the people are what makes it interesting. the personal dynamics. was Star Trek about the technobabble (in pre Berman/Bragga times, i mean)? no. it was about the people. as is CSI, when you boil it down.

No, what I would prefer is a more "Law and Order" plot driven show. We have characters, etc, but the show is not in any way dependant on those characters personal lives, like who they are sleeping with. I don't care. Have interesting characters, for sure. But you can do that without getting into tangents, as shown by L&O.

 

[Chupacabras]

Fiction affects the way people view reality, like it or not...

Agreed. A psychologist once told me that the greatest problem with bad TV is that people learn by imitation. A also recall comments in a newspaper about people in France asking the police for a search warrant (in France it is not required) or people in USA courts demanding DNA tests after the infamous OJ Simson trial (as if they were for free).

On CSI, I recently saw how they picked the fingerprint from a home-video recording image ( a very dark one, BTW - I went to try that with a 5 megapixel camera and couldn't devise a thing (considering the same conditions as in the show). Guess what, people going into court will wishful-think that they will be saved by some sort of gadget, instead of hiring a lawyer that does his job dutifully.

2 cents.

 

[Chris Haynes]

.... The embryo had been removed as part of the autopsy, and during the interrogation of the prime suspect Caruso held up a picture of a two year old girl. Trying to bring some psychological pressure to bear, he told the PS that this is what his daughter would have looked like on her second birthday. He claimed this image was generated using the foetal DNA fingerprint....

I saw this episode when it first aired, so my memory is a bit fuzzy:

I thought they used the morphing techniques to try and figure out what a missing child would look like after several years. Though, as I recall this is usually done by taking a photo of the actual child, photos of both parents and some artistic license to get an idea of what a kidnapped child would look like years after their disappearence.

For whatever method he used (or what is possible in reality)... it seems Caruso's point was that the guy murdered a real child... his own child.

By the way, while I understand some of the science used, and am glad they are showing people who are excited in science in a mostly positive way: the episode with the psychic really bothered me!

Though... didn't the psychic also get murdered? Wasn't he sensitive enough to know that someone going to kill him?

 

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by BPSCG:
I don't go to the movies to get a history lesson, because I know they make things up in the interest of making the story more interesting. So why would I watch TV to get a science lesson?

As long as you don't go to the movies for a history lesson, then that's OK. OTOH most people probably wouldn't be able to differentiate between a historical drama and a documentary. remember all the to-do there was over "Pearl Harbor", "U570" and "The Patriot"?

Likewise with CSI we have a series that's centred around the scientific investigation of crime, and personally I think the writers bear a responsibility to make it scientifically accurate within reason and the constraints of TV. I can't see how this would compromise the show's other merits.