In a paper published in Forensic Science International, Dan Frumkin, a private forensics researcher, claims that fabricating DNA evidence has become so easy that "[a]ny biology undergraduate could perform this."

Frumkin outlines two methods for fabricating DNA evidence. The first requires access to a small sample of an individual's DNA, such as a hair or a bit of saliva. The size of the sample is then increased through a common technique known as DNA amplification. Then the hopeful framer takes blood from a different individual, centrifuges it to remove the DNA-carrying white blood cells, and leaves only the red blood cells, which contain no DNA. The person then adds the amplified DNA to the blood sample, creating a handy supply of blood that could be splashed onto a crime scene to implicate the chosen target.

The second method requires no actual sample of DNA, but a person's DNA profile, which may be stored in a law enforcement database. These profiles identify variations at 13 specific spots in an individual's genome. Frumkin claims that a scientist could keep a library of a cloned snippets of DNA representing the variants at the 13 spots (he estimates 425 samples would be needed in all), and he or she could mix the snippets to create a DNA sample matching anyone's genetic profile.

Frumkin says that, at the moment, there are ways to determine whether DNA evidence has been fabricated (and his own company, Nucleix, provides such tests), but it's a step forensic labs don't normally take. Although some respondents question whether criminals will actually use these techniques to throw suspicion off themselves and onto others, Tania Simoncelli, an American Civil Liberties Union science adviser, suggests that it's time for courts to reevaluate the reliability of DNA evidence:

"DNA is a lot easier to plant at a crime scene than fingerprints," she said. "We're creating a criminal justice system that is increasingly relying on this technology."

DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show [NY Times]

The Android’s Dream by John Scalzi: The alien Nidu are not the most popular race on Earth, so it’s not surprising when an anti-Nidu agent stages a flatulent assassination against one of the Nidu diplomats. The Nidu are pissed, but offer Earth one chance to avoid war: obtain for them the Android’s Dream, a rare sheep used in Nidu coronation ceremonies. The ruling Nidu clan owns the patent on the sheep’s DNA, in perpetuity, and few are permitted to breed it. The problem is, someone is killing off all the sheep.
Are patents a pro or a con? Con. The ruling Nidu clan uses their ownership of the sheep to stay in power since they’re the only ones who own the sheep necessary for the coronation sacrifice. Of course, by limiting the breeding of the sheep, they screw themselves over when the sheep start dying off.

The Venetian Court by Charles Harness: Charles Harness was himself a patent attorney, and often cast patent lawyers as his heroes. Inventor Ellen Welles develops a new product called Fiber K. Unfortunately, a megacorporation that uses a supercomputer to churn out inventions has beaten her to the patent. Too bad for her, since patent infringement is a capital offense. So she hires Quentin Thomas, patent attorney extraordinaire.
Are patents a pro or a con? Con. Harness neatly exaggerates the devastation individuals and companies face when they discover they’re infringing some one else’s patent. He also foresaw the rise of patent trolls, companies that file and buy up as many patents as possible only to extort licensing fees from other businesses.

“Elimination” by John Campbell: An inventor who has discovered a way to can and transport electricity goes to his late father’s friend, an attorney, to apply for a patent. The attorney, doubtful that such a revolutionary invention should be made public, proceeds to tell the inventor about the greatest invention in the world, and how it almost destroyed its inventor.
Are patents a pro or a con? Con. At the beginning of the story, the patent attorney suggests that someone could quietly purchase the patent and destroy it, ensuring this life-saving technology never sees the light of day. In actually, the patent would make electricity in a can a matter of public record, and the owner could only hold it back from the world for 20 years.

The Man Who Fell to Earth by Walter Tevis: The alien Thomas Newton comes to Earth to build a spaceship to shuttle refugees from his home planet to Earth. To raise money, he patents his race’s advanced technology and sets himself up as an entrepreneur.
Are patents a pro or a con? Actually, one of the few Pros. True, the patent system is meant for new inventions, not long-existing alien tech. But thanks to a system that gives owners exclusive rights to sell their technology, humanity gets a big technological boost.

Vatta’s War by Elizabeth Moon: In the distant future, spaceships communicate with one another via ansible. A single group owns all significant patents on communications technology and consequently functions as a de facto government.
Are patents a pro or a con? Con. With a runaway patent system and no antitrust laws, a sole organization is able to hold the universe’s trade groups hostage to its rule.

Next by Michael Crichton: After BioGen, a genetics research company, harvests cells from a cancer survivor, the company patents his cell line. The survivor sues the company, but loses when the court awards ownership of the line to BioGen.
Are patents a pro or a con? Con. As with many of the scientific experiments he depicts, Crichton envisions the law as spiraling out of control. BioGen decides that, since it owns the man’s cell line, it can harvest cells from his unwilling descendents, hunting down his daughter and grandson.

Prosecution offices in India have set up labs to examine suspects who submit to the test. When areas of the brain associated with memory, such as those dealing with smell and sound, light up during the description of a crime, prosecutors see that as evidence of the subject's commission of the crime:

Ms. Sharma, 24, agreed to take a BEOS test in Mumbai, the capital of Maharashtra. (Suspects may be tested only with their consent, but forensic investigators say many agree because they assume it will spare them an aggressive police interrogation.)

After placing 32 electrodes on Ms. Sharma's head, investigators said, they read aloud their version of events, speaking in the first person (“I bought arsenic”; “I met Udit at McDonald's”), along with neutral statements like “The sky is blue,” which help the software distinguish memories from normal cognition.

For an hour, Ms. Sharma said nothing. But the relevant nooks of her brain where memories are thought to be stored buzzed when the crime was recounted, according to Mr. Joseph, the state investigator. The judge endorsed Mr. Joseph's assertion that the scans were proof of “experiential knowledge” of having committed the murder, rather than just having heard about it.

Previously, Indian courts had accepted BEOS results only as corroborating evidence, not proof in itself of criminal activity. Citing the seriousness of the outcome (Sharma received a life sentence), many neuroscientists and bioethicists in the US have stated that the technology, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, has entered the legal system far too soon. But even if these supposed mind-reading technologies never meet the evidentiary standards of courts outside of India, other possible public and private uses exist:

No Lie MRI, a company in California, promises on its Web site to use the scans to help with developing interpersonal trust and military intelligence, among other tasks. In August, a committee of the National Research Council in Washington predicted that, with greater research, brain scans could eventually aid “the acquisition of intelligence from captured unlawful combatants” and “the screening of terrorism suspects at checkpoints.”

Image from Bioedge.

India's Novel Use of Brain Scans in Courts Is Debated [NY Times]