I do often wonder about stories like this in the context of forensic science – my (incomplete!) understanding a lot of the time suspect DNA samples are taken from small areas and amplified significantly with high-cycle count PCR. I'd worry that any jury presented with a statistical argument about a fragment of somebody's DNA being very unlikely ("1 in 100 million") to be different to the sample found at the scene would not be aware of all of the potential systematic reasons why the actual true probability may be much, much higher.

buried the lede, imho: we have enough DNA profiles to match their sampling up with.

I'm always stunned when reminded that a full genome sequencing has gone from Human Genome Project's extreme cost and (edit: glacial) speed to using seqencing as the easy button.

I hear we've also got machines that'll seqence, fit on a bench, and cost high five/low six figures. They've got issues to work out still though- iirc something about damaged sections causing issues.

What a wonderful title, a breath of fresh air.

This always blows my mind. We are currently breathing in the DNA of the trees, animals, and people around us—and we’re leaving ours behind for them, too. We’re all one big genetic soup.

Let's wait for smartphones with nanopores

I was chatting with a biologist friend a while back, and one tidbit he dropped in was that any sample of air from anywhere on earth will likely contain the dna of organisms unknown to science, so abundant the tree of life is.

[stub for offtopicness]