The writer on this blog post , John Buckleton provides interesting and valuable details regarding additional information on peer review and judicial acceptance of this DNA software. He is a co-developer of STRmix, a NZ government employee and has stated to me his no financial interest in the product. Cheers to John and his colleagues.
Quoting an erroneous story in Buzzfeed News from earlier this year, your recent article incorrectly states, “The main problem with STRmix and other DNA-matching software programs is that hardly anyone knows how they work.” While we are not in a position to discuss other DNA software, numerous scientific papers focused on the STRmix™ formulae have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals in order to ensure robust scrutiny and acceptance by the scientific community. In addition, four-day training workshops routinely are conducted for STRmix™ users before they implement it to ensure that they understand how STRmix™ works and are able to correctly represent the results it generates in court.
STRmix™ has a policy that allows defense scientists access to STRmix™ source code and an executable version as long as they are not developers of competing software. Further, we have trained defense and prosecution forensic scientists in the use of STRmix™ and remain open to additional ways we can help the legal community to understand STRmix™.
While STRmix is indeed a relatively new technology, it has been used to interpret DNA evidence in literally thousands of cases for more than four years. In the U.S., there have been three successful admissibility hearings for STRmix™, while DNA evidence interpreted with STRmix™ has been successfully used in more than 65 other court cases.
We hope this helps to clarify the use and acceptance of STRmix and we ask you to publish this correction for your readers.