A frequency of 0.001554 corresponds to about 1 in 644 persons. Addition of two loci with about the same information content would yield a four-locus genotype frequency of about 1 in 414,000 persons. Of course, if fewer than four loci were interpretable, as is common in forensic typing, the estimated genotype frequency would be much higher.
Significantly more statistical power for the same loci will be available when appropriate population studies have been carried out, because the availability of data based on a more rigorous sampling scheme will make it unnecessary to take an upper 95% confidence limit for each allele frequency nor to put such a conservative lower bound (0.10) on each allele frequency. Assuming that the population studies do not reveal significant substructure, the 5% lower bound recommended earlier should be used.
Finally, once appropriate population studies have been conducted and ceiling frequencies estimated under the auspices of NCFDT, population frequency estimates can be based on the ceiling principle (rather than the modified ceiling principle discussed above). Such calculations can never be perfect, but we believe that such a foundation will be sufficient for calculating frequencies that are prudently cautious—i.e., for calculating a lower limit of the frequency of a DNA pattern in the general population. In addition, new scientific techniques (e.g., minisatellite repeat codings29) are being and will be developed and might require re-examination by NCDFT of the statistical issues raised here.
Our recommendations represent an attempt to lay a firm foundation for DNA typing that will be able to support the increasing weight that will be placed on such evidence in the coming years. We recognize that a wide variety of methods for population genetics calculations have been used in previous cases—including some that are less conservative than the approach recommended here. We emphasize that our recommendations are not intended to question previous cases, but rather to chart the most prudent course for the future.
Any population databank used to support forensic DNA typing should be openly available for reasonable scientific inspection. Presenting scientific conclusions in a criminal court is at least as serious as presenting scientific conclusions in an academic paper. According to long-standing and wise scientific tradition, the data underlying an important scientific conclusion must be freely available, so that others can evaluate the results and publish their own findings, whether in support or in disagreement. There is no excuse for secrecy concerning the raw data. Protective orders are inappropriate, except for those protecting individual's names and other identifying information, even for data that have not yet been published or for data