10 Worst Drinking Trends of 2010

Glad to see Four Loko made the list!

Merry Christmas!

Wishing everyone a wonderful holiday filled with joy, magic and friends and family!

The Trouble with DUID: Part II

So in the last post we began our discussion on DUID and some of the many problems that go along with the legislation involved to enforce it. We spoke of how legislation is often reactionary and because of that only focuses on the minutia and not the overall concern.

So what is our concern with DUID?

I would hazard a guess and say that our concern is that we do not want potentially dangerous people driving on our roads, and by having a DUID law we have said that people using drugs fit into that category of dangerous people.

So what's the problem? Well, lots of people are on "drugs" in this country at any one time. Does that mean that anyone using a prescription drug should be banned from driving? The legislature clearly doesn't want that, and I agree that would go too far. Some prescription drugs are impairing and others are not. How do we know that the person is impaired? With drugs, impairment seems to occur at different levels in different people, making per se limits controversial even in the scientific community.

Some countries have operators accused of DUID examined by doctors at arrest and have the doctor determine whether they are impaired or not, which is then confirmed by blood test. In this country we have a DRE program, which in theory, should do the same thing. Specially trained officers certified by this program are trained to conduct a 12 point exam to determine whether a person is impaired by drugs or not. The blood is then tested to confirm their observations.

So that should solve it right? Well, no and for two reasons.

#1. In our state at least the statute states that when drugs are involved, the operator must be incapable of operating safely. So, if the subject crashed their car and they are under the influence of an illegal drug, then great! The reality is that's not what you see most often. What if the drug they're using is prescription and within therapeutic ranges? Are they impaired or not? It depends. What about on a snowy day where lots of car crashes have occurred? Can you prove it was the drug and not the snow?

#2. DRE's are often told to ensure they don't make errors to simply have the blood screened for everything. Ok. Now what? Although it's not the intention, screening for everything implies that they cannot determine the impairment or at least what caused it. Is it enough for them simply to see impairment without knowing what drug or class of drug caused it? That depends on how we want to use the information. Don't get me wrong, I think the DRE program is an excellent system with well trained officers. I just think it's not always used to it's fullest potential.

Now, if the statute was like the alcohol statute where impairment was to the slightest degree rather than incapable of operating safely, I think the DRE program would be able to work more effectively. We would have a subject suspected of impairment from drugs, the DRE would confirm they were impaired and the test result would support the observations. Then it wouldn't matter so much whether they were stopped for speeding or for crashing their car.

The trouble with impairment in driving however is that there are many things that will impair your driving and most aren't illegal. Experience, age, fatigue, distraction. People have tried to address issues like these by banning hand held cell phones only to find that it's the actual conversation that distracts people and not the holding of the phone.Others are in the same boat as prescription drugs, we don't want to ban grandma from driving just because this happens.

So what do we do?

I'm not going to pretend I know the answer to that. But I do believe it's time that we start looking at the big picture rather than chasing lists. The idea of banning any chemical which binds to a certain receptor is an interesting idea, and it is going towards the right direction of thinking about the problem rather than the specific instant.

It's something to think about anyway.

The Trouble with DUID: Part I

Five years ago, give or take, when Vermont was first getting a DRE ("Drug Recognition Evaluator" formerly "Drug Recognition Expert") program I did a presentation for my colleagues entitled "The Trouble with DUID." With the recent talk of banning Four Loko and dealing with the "Spice" issue, which I will save to discuss in detail later, it's gotten me thinking again about that presentation and the issue of legislation.

Legislation, as with any move from government agencies it seems, is very reactionary in it's nature. "Oh my God, here's one instance of something that happened, quick ban it!" Maybe a bit of a dramatization, but it certainly seems that way. Don't believe me? Look up www.stupidlaws.com. You'll note that in Vermont at one time it was illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. Think that was reactionary? Or another example. How about the TSA screening procedures?

What has the focus been on the Four Loko ban? Look at any of the articles or the bills being introduced and you will see the focus is on the caffeine and the brightly colored packaging. Were those college kids hospitalized for caffeine intoxication? No, it was alcohol poisoning. My prediction is that the bills will ban caffeine containing alcoholic beverages. My second prediction is that Four Loko will simply drop the caffeine, add a little more guarana and be back on the shelves in no time. Leaving the problem of a 12% alcohol 24 ounce pop top beverage that will still be intriguing due to it's low price and high alcohol content.

The same thing is occurring with Spice. There are 400 variations of the synthetic THC used, but the lawmakers are all busily making lists of chemicals to ban. Chemicals that they are seeing now. They'll ban those few that are common place now, leaving the rest legal. The manufacturers will simply switch variations and it will be legal again. A presenter at NEAFS presented an interesting idea. Simply ban anything that binds to the cannabinoid receptor. Then every variation is, by mechanism of action, illegal.

So what does that have to do with DUID? Driving Under the Influence of Drugs for those not familiar with the acronym. Well, several years ago, I was presented with pending legislation to change the DUID statute in Vermont. We were asked to review and comment on the wording. The bill wasn't original. It was adapted from another state and followed a similar pattern and a poor one at that. It simply listed drugs that were no-nos. This created a problem for some. #1 Drugs that were Schedule I were less of an issue, since they are already illegal, but the legislature wanted numbers like the per se limits in the DUI laws. #2 Those drugs that had therapeutic uses were concerning. The legislature did not want to make it illegal for someone to drive "legally impaired."

That phrase absolutely screeches in my head like nails on a chalkboard. I'm sure I'd feel much better if a friend or family member were killed by someone driving "legally impaired." What they meant was that they felt that people who were prescribed medication should not be banned from driving since they were given the drug legally by their doctor. Some how the fact that those medications all come with warnings that people should not operate motor vehicles was irrelevant. The biggest problem with this is our country's love affair with pharmaceuticals, but that's a separate issue.

Anyways, I digress. Alcohol is a nice clean, linear, neat drug. The effects are universal and occur at vice nice linear progressions until at the highest level death occurs. Per se limits can be put into effect because ethanol's affect on people is very consistent. Drugs don't follow this pattern. They don't all affect people linearly nor have the same effects on every person. This makes per se limits very difficult to impose. Factoring in as well that people don't want to ban therapeutic levels of drugs, it's a complicated issue.

I think when we focus on lists and per se limits we're starting to be unable to see the forest for the trees. In Vermont, the DUI laws indicate that a person can not operate a motor vehicle when they are under the influence of alcohol to the slightest degree. The drug law however, states that the person must be unable to operate a motor vehicle safely. That is a huge discrepancy and due in part to the difficulties stated above. Unless someone crashes their car with an illegal drug in their blood at a high level, it's difficult to prove that the drug caused it.

On the next post we'll continue from there and continue to outline the Trouble with DUID.

Friday Cartoon!

Splash Patterns- Detecting a Hoax

Every once in a while a story appears in the crime section that stuns everyone as to it's apparently random and horrible nature. How horrible that something like that could occur just for the sake of doing it! The random nature certainly puts a certain amount of fear into the public. If it's random then by it's very definition it could happen to anyone. Crimes of passion we understand. Those involved are already involved, they're not chosen at random.

Some times these random acts are real and truly horrible. One of these occurred in the town I was living in shortly after college where a man snapped for lack of a better word. After killing his cat he decided to kill the first person that passed his house, and he did. It was tragic and the work of a very sick mind.

More often then not however we find that these stories are hoaxes. The wounds, if there are any, have actually been self inflicted. Further works of sick minds, but at least not to the public. One of these occurred on Halloween of this year where a man reported that someone trick-or-treating in a gorilla costume stabbed him when he opened the door. Just thinking, innocently opening your door to hand out candy, and what do you get but stabbed for your efforts! How terrible! Well, turns out it was all a hoax. After further questioning, he confessed that he had stabbed himself.

Another story which made national news follows a similar pattern. Just a random girl out celebrating a new job and a woman throws acid in her face! How terrible! Why her? There's no connection! It could have been me. Well...maybe not so much. Although her story held up longer than our gorilla man, it did fall apart eventually. Part of what made it fall apart was good old fashion forensics.

So often these stories fall apart. Officers questioning them find holes in the story or inconsistencies. So too is this true in forensics. Although my testimony is focused on toxicology I am often asked, is this consistent? Is the story consistent with the test result? Is the behavior consistent with dose? In the case of the acid splash it was, are these burns consistent with acid being thrown into someone's face?

Well, actually it doesn't take a lot of training to see that no, they are not consistent. Let's forgive the fact that she was wearing sunglasses at night, a girl has to celebrate a new job somehow! Ok, so her eyes are protected. Well, let's look at the rest of her face. To me, it looks like an acid peel gone horribly wrong. Her hair and neck are untouched. Well, if the acid was thrown it should have splashed not only against her face but also her hair, neck and chest. What about her lips? Ok, sunglasses, we got the eyes, but her lips? Extra strength chapstick maybe? No. They make no mention of her clothes, but I would bet those too were untouched. Have worked for several years in a metals lab I can tell you what acid does to clothes. It would be noticeable. The burns look as if they were applied along her face rather than thrown at her and indeed, that is how it was. She put on a pair of gloves and swabbed her face.

One of the arguments I've scene made against this type of forensic work is that it's subjective. I know it when I see it. Well...Yeah. Why is that a "bad" thing though?  I would hope that if I were having surgery my surgeon would know it when he sees it. Just as the stories given in interviews to Officers must be consistent so too must the stories be consistent with the resulting data, injury, etc. It's actually a simple concept and one that must be relayed to attorneys, judges and juries. Science isn't always a mysterious, scary concept!

Four Loko: A US ban?

The FDA is expected to make a decision on the safety of Four Loko by Wednesday in response to a number of states moving to ban the drink. It will be interesting to see how this proceeds and what the exact phrasing is once it's done. The focus appears to be on the caffeine portion of the drink, but removing the caffeine from the drink still leaves the basic problem: the alcohol concentration. Too often this type of legislation is a knee jerk response which is barely enforceable because the time is not taken to word it properly and understand the real issue. We will have to wait and see...

Staying up to Date Part II: THC Potency and Drug Changes

Marijuana is the number one used drug in this country with the exception of alcohol, so it makes sense that for years studies have been done on it's effects on behavior, especially on driving abilities. I've attended numerous seminars and read many articles where low and high levels of THC concentration have been given to subjects so that these studies can be done. Great! We have low and high, so we're all set right?

Wrong!

Let's discuss: Looking at these studies the low dose of THC equates to 1.7% and the high THC equates to 3.5%. Ok, so far so good. So naturally our questions should go to how do these values compare to what is used in the real world? Well, let's see.

This September, the Journal of Forensic Sciences featured an article entitled "Potency Trends of Δ⁹-THC and Other Cannabinoids in Confiscated Cannabis Preparations from 1993 to 2008" which first appeared online in May of this year. This study was put together by the University of Mississippi which acts as the Potency Monitoring Program for NIDA. So, how do our studies with concentrations between 1.7% and 3.5% compare to what's out there?
 
Well...pretty dismally. It turns out that the average THC concentration of marijuana that has been confiscated between 1993 to 2008 has risen from 3.4% in 1993 to 8.8% in 2008. Hmm...


This is another example of why it is vital for those involved in forensics to keep up to date with the literature and the trends. An opinion given in a case using the studies for THC concentrations of 1.7% or 3.5% would be woefully inaccurate when what was smoked was closer to 9%. That is a substantial increase and one that makes a substantial difference in interpretation. It also points to why it is important that theses studies continue and continue to be funded. 

Studies are only as good as their applicability to the real-world situation.

This past week I attended the annual meeting of the Northeastern Association of Forensic Scientists which was held in conjunction with the New England Division of the International Association for Identification. It was a wonderful conference with many great people and presentations. One of which was presented by Vadim Astrakhan from the DEA in New York who made a comment about the good ole days when Ecstasy contained MDMA and it's variants. Now he is finding Ecstasy frequently that contains no MDMA at all, but does contain BZP or TFMPP. His presentation was on detecting these compounds since they co-elute, but whether your interest is in testing for the drug or discussing it's effects it's important to know what is actually out there.

The other trend in presentations was the "Spice Trade" which features plant material coated with synthetic marijuana and is sold legally. The general theme of these presentations was the concept of chasing a moving target. When there are 400 different variations of the compound where do you look? Some states are contemplating banning one or two of the compounds. How effective is that when the dealers can merely switch to one of the other 400? The appearance of spice has changed over time as well. How do you keep officers informed for what to look for now?


Keeping up to date is vital for anyone involved in forensics. Science is not static! It is ever changing and to be good at your job you have to keep up. Any state or county that under-funds their forensic section should think on that.

Friday Cartoon

Staying up to Date Part I: What is a Standard Drink now?

Recently I've realized that my entire primary school education has been proven wrong. Christopher Columbus did not discover America. Pluto is not a planet. You don't really use cursive. Brontosaurus is Brachiosaurus or Apatosaurus as they're calling it now and apparently the Triceratops was just the juvenile form of another dinosaur. Hmmm... Things change.

It's a good thing to remember especially as scientists whose job it is to stay up on the latest info. There used to be an old saying that is finally falling by the wayside. The saying that people eliminate one drink an hour. That hasn't been true for a long time for several reasons:

One: People gain different alcohol concentrations from the same drink based on gender and body type and Two: The alcohol concentration of drinks has risen.

In the "olden days" when the Brontosaurus roamed the earth and gas was 99 cents a gallon, regular beer was 4% alcohol. In the slightly more modern days when Apatosaurus roamed the Earth and gas was $4.50 a gallon, regular beer was 5% alcohol. That extra percentage makes a difference!

Now in the current days where some random dinosaurs may or may not roam the Earth and gas is around $2.80 a gallon at recent glance we need to re-evaluate what we are using for a standard beer. Budweiser advertises at 5% beer. Is that "standard?" I live in Vermont where micro brews reign supreme. When the typical micro brew is at least 6% and often more, should I be using a 5% beer as my standard drink? A quick look at Rock Art beers show 25 different brews where half of them are at least 8% alcohol and rise up to 10% alcohol. This means that a typical Rock Art is equal to nearly two Budweisers. That's using 12 ounce servings. If we start talking pints or the 20-24 ouncers that are starting to be served we're talking a substantial difference.

That's simply talking beer. You all know my opinion on Four Loko, the insanity of all alcohol beverages. Expert witnesses need to be aware of what's out there. We must stay on top of what is being sold and what is happening to the alcohol concentration of common beverages.

A few years ago, if  I were presented with a test of 0.160 and asked if it were possible for a person to reach that point on two drinks consumed a couple of hours ago as stated in a processing form, I would have answered in the negative. No way could a person do that. Now however with the presence of Four Loko and the trend of micro brews to reach 10% alcohol, the answer would not be so simple. Yeah, it's possible. Depending on what they were drinking, it may even be likely.

The problem we will be seeing is that the general public is not aware of the change either. I've already posted about the hospitalizations of people drinking Four Loko, but on the more common front defendants will easily be over an 0.08 and not understand how it happened. I've had to point out to my own husband, "That equals two!"

Keeping all of this in mind, what is a Vermont standard drink? Should we base the "standard" drink on region or should we get rid of it all together? I think that's best left up to a case by case basis, but expert witnesses should spend more time investigating what it is that is actually being consumed. If you have the name of the beer, it's very easy to find the alcohol concentration and well worth the extra couple of minutes for the greatly increased accuracy of your calculation.

The Forensics of Horror Part IV: Ghosts

"It said: 'I am the invisible nonentity. I have affinities and am subtle. I am electric, magnetic, and spiritualistic. I am the great ethereal sigh-heaver. I kill dogs. Mortal, wilt thou choose me?'" Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Stories of ghosts are observed in every culture. Every child has pretended to be one. Countless stories and movies have starred them, and now the trend is to hunt them with scientific equipment, because if we use scientific equipment then we must be doing science!

Now, I won't say whether I believe in ghosts or not. I've known many people who swear they've encountered ghosts. Even Vermont's own police academy is said to be haunted and many say they've dealt with Mary during their overnight visits. Whether we believe or not is really not the point. The point is could we prove they exist or do not exist in a court of law? Could we prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a house is haunted?

Proving something does not exist or did not happen is nearly impossible so we'll eliminate that aspect. Indeed, even our legal system has been changed so that the defendant does not have to prove that they did not do something, because how is that possible? How do you prove a negative?

Instead, let's talk about proving their existence. There are several wildly popular shows using "science" to investigate the paranormal. They have their scientific tools and they use these to profess that what they are doing is science. However, just as holding a scalpel does not make you a surgeon, holding an EMF recorder does not make you a scientist. In fact, Ghost Hunting Kits are sold in many places. For $160 dollars you too can be an expert paranormal investigator!

Ghost Hunting tend to focus on several measurements, they look for fluctuation in electromagnetic fields, changes in temperature, strange drafts or breezes and abnormal photographic or phonic recordings. Why? Because places that have stories of hauntings have these variations. Therefore these variations must mean there are ghosts present. There's a problem with this logic.

Let's try a hypothesis, shall we? I have been to resorts in Mexico. At these resorts many people exhibited signs of impairment including euphoric behavior, fine motor skill impairment, slurred speech etc. Therefore, Mexican resorts cause impairment. If I go to a house and see this same behavior then I know that I am in a Mexican resort. Tada!

This is very similar to the observations and measurements made by Ghost Hunters. First off, the Ghost Hunters lack a control group. Measurements of the same nature should be made in houses which have not shown any signs of haunting. Do these same EMF fluctuations exist? Are there cold spots? Strange drafts? I live in an old farm house that I have never, ever observed paranormal activity in, and I can tell you, we have cold spots and drafts. If these same measurements exist in the control group then they are not linked directly to ghostly activity and should be discounted as indicators. Just as signs of impairment should  not be used as an indicator that we are at a Mexican Resort.

Control groups are always used in any credible scientific study. In terms of impairment the control group is typically the same group of individuals before they have been administered an impairing substance. Therefore you isolate the number of variables at any one time.

Ok, so there is no control group, do the Ghost Hunters reduce the number of variables? Well, they use the same equipment and presumably the same people to do the measurements so there is no variable there. Of course this leads to a new problem which we will discuss in a moment. However, they move to new locations each time. Each location is different. Are measurements done throughout a long extended period under a variety of factors? No. Is the non-paranormal edge looked at? Is a home inspector brought in?

As Sherlock Holmes said: 

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Of course, they're not trying to eliminate the other reasons. As opposed to trying to prove that something is not correlated as scientific procedure dictates, Ghost Hunters are looking to prove that there is a correlation and this is much simpler to do. Anything you find can be evidence because you say it is so.

Now, as for our new problem. By using the same equipment and the same people the Ghost Hunters are adding a new problem. Reproducibility. Are their measurements reproducible by an independent group as is required in any scientifically valid study? No, of course not. That would not be good tv.

I could go on, but for the sake of brevity let's leave it at this: The evidence of ghosts obtained by shows like "Ghost Hunters" would not be sufficient to prove ghostly existence in a court of law. Scientific procedure is not followed and as of yet I would say there is no scientifically or legally valid proof that ghosts exist.

However, I would be interested in seeing someone do just that.

Four Loko: I'm sensing a theme...

And Four Loko again, this time at Central Washington University.

I'm very big on people taking responsibility for their actions, but in this instance this applies more to the manufacturer of Four Loko then anyone else. Packaging a drink like this in 24 ounce pop tops, implies that it is one serving. When you're talking calories, fine. Worst case scenario someone gains weight. When you're talking alcohol, that's just dangerous and irresponsible.



Put it this way: What do you think the uproar would be if they packaged oxycodone in over-sized packages and then said it's up to the people taking them to take them responsibly?

Six ounce bottles people, I'm telling you. That's the way to fix this.

The Forensics of Horror Part III: Zombies

There is an excellent article in the very theme we have been focusing on this month over at Cracked. The 7 Scientific Reasons a Zombie Apocalypse Would Fail. Although the article doesn't entirely focus on forensics it is a very science based approach to discussing a zombie apocalypse. They don't tie their discussion to forensics, but indeed their article does have those ties.

Maggot development is often used to date a decomposing body. The Tennessee Body Farm has extensive information on timing bodies through maggots. The maggot lifespan is very clearly documented and by knowing what stage of life the maggots are in, one can date the age of the decomposing body. Flies typically lay eggs on a dead body within 30 hours. I don't know about you, but that in itself would make me want to be found quick!

Bloat and dessication are affected greatly by temperature and can be used as well on the timing of death. Cold is a little trickier. We're all just meat when it comes down to it. If you leave a steak in the freezer for a very long period of time your meat will be ruined for eating, true, but it won't be decomposed. The same is true for a body frozen shortly after death. Stories of finding frozen "cavemen" have shown examples where bodies have been preserved by freezing for millenia. This obviously can make it tricky to know how long the body has been there. At that point missing person reports would be helpful and for very long periods of time dates (such as on a drivers license) on any identification would be helpful and even the style of clothes can aid in timing the death.

One aspect of zombies that I have also seen tied to forensics: identifying victims from the pool of blood. Zombies are pretty much land sharks without the reproductive drive. Eat, Eat, EAT! This typically results in enormous pools of blood splattered everywhere. Now, assuming society hasn't completely collapsed, occasionally people will try to identify the victims by the blood. DNA right? CSI says we can do that, so we can!

Here's the problem. You have an enormous pool of blood made up of multiple victims. Where do you sample from? Liquids mix together. The blood of the victims won't stay in their distinct spots which means the DNA sample you have will be completed contaminated. Large pool of blood with multiple victims? You might as well not have any blood at all! A sample can be contaminated to the point of ruin. We've all heard stories of DNA evidence being thrown out of court because of contamination and that's in the real world.

DNA evidence in a zombie apocalypse? Forget we ever had the capability.

Four Loko: STILL a very bad idea.

Forgive this brief interruption in our Forensics of Horror series, but "Four Loko" has hit the news again. This time a New Jersey college is calling for a ban on all alcohol containing energy drinks and singles out "Four Loko" by name after a dozen students have been hospitalized with alcohol poisoning.

There is a very easy fix to the drink beyond simply not drinking it. The manufacturer should be called upon to simply repackage the drink into six ounce bottles. By making that change a 140 pound female would gain a 0.046 BAC per bottle rather than the 0.183 BAC they gain by the current packaging. Although I guess making this change would make the "Loko" part of the name less applicable.

Say it with me people:   

                     Good Crazy = Dyeing your hair purple.

                  
                  Bad Crazy = Killing yourself with Four Loko

The Forensics of Horror, Part II: Jekyll & Hyde

"I hesitated long before I put this theory to the test of practice. I knew well that I risked death; for any drug that so potently controlled and shook the very fortress of identity, might, by the least scruple of an overdose or at the least inopportunity in the moment of exhibition, utterly blot out that immaterial tabernacle which I looked to it to change. But the temptation of a discovery so singular and profound at last overcame the suggestions of alarm."

-The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde ...

In our last post we discussed how the science of temperature change can be used to determine the time of death on a cooling body. In this post we move back to my realm of expertise, toxicology. Now, the way toxicology is applied in forensics changes drastically with whether the subject is alive or dead. When the concern is postmortem, then what we tend to be most interested in are the effects that the drug had on the body. What was the cause of death? How did the drugs/poisons interact with one another? What effect did the drug/poison have on the heart, the brain, etc.

When the subject is alive what we tend to be interested in is how the drug/poison effected their behavior. Did the drug cause the subject to behave in an unusual manner? With alcohol, this could be impairment as we discuss in DUI cases, but it could also be in terms of decision making or memories. For instance, did the alcohol make the subject unable to consent to sexual intercourse? Is it possible the subject has no memory of an assault?

Most know the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; the case of a mild mannered doctor who uses himself as a lab rat with a drug of his own mixture and releases the murderous personality of Mr. Hyde. There are several drugs we could attribute this change in Dr. Jekyll to. Many drugs including alcohol lower inhibitions. Perhaps Dr. Jekyll wasn't as mild mannered as he appeared. Perhaps the murderous rage was simply being held in check when he was sober and the reduced inhibitions let it free.

We can probably safely say that it wasn't marijuana and probably not an opiate either. The sedative effects of those drugs should have helped quell Mr. Hyde's rage if not simply reduce his motivation to seek out victims. They are also not associated with personality changes.

We can probably also eliminate cocaine from the list of possibilities. There are extremely rare cases where cocaine does cause paranoia in people taking it, but it's rare so let's assume Dr. Jekyll does not fall into this category. Certainly Mr. Hyde would still have the energy to seek out and act on his desires, but if we believe that Dr. Jekyll really was mild mannered then we would not expect cocaine to change his personality so drastically. Perhaps Dr. Jekyll would simply spend more time in his research without the need to sleep?

LSD is known to cause drastic changes in perception and we would certainly expect a change in personality to occur. LSD users tripping together have been known to kill each other in one delusion or another. Homicide and suicide are the most common causes of death attributed to LSD so is it possible that LSD was Dr. Jekyll's drug? Possible. However, Mr. Hyde's personality when it does appear seems to be very consistent and methodical, which is probably not what we would expect with LSD. Trips from LSD are known to differ wildly in the same person based on environment and mood. Would it be possible for Dr. Jekyll to always revert to Mr. Hyde regardless of mood or environment? Possible, but improbable.

I believe our most likely culprit would be PCP which is known to induce delusional, paranoid and violent behavior in it's users and those are the reasons the drug was pulled from approved human usage. Additionally PCP users have been known to exhibit "strength" and "endurance" beyond what is expected from an average person. This is primarily due to the fact that users simply do not register the pain and will continue on despite the fact that serious injury is occurring. Additionally, at low doses, some of the symptoms are consistent with alcohol which, as we mentioned before, result in reduced inhibitions.

So, we assume that Dr. Jekyll does have some part of his personality that encompasses the rage and homicidal desire of Mr. Hyde, but is buried within his consciousness. His drug (PCP) reduces the inhibition holding this desire back and adds in the paranoia and violence to truly let Mr. Hyde free.

Though we are discussing literature and not an actual case, this is not a far fetched hypothesis. Indeed one real life horror, Charles Manson, used drugs to help induce the right frame of mind in his followers to commit horrible murders.

Friday Cartoon

The Forensics of Horror Part I: Vampires

In honor of October, this month's posts will focus on the forensics of horror. Never underestimate a scientist's ability to find science everywhere!

The other night I was watching a truly terrible vampire movie. It was truly bad. Tears from laughing, bad.

Anyways, at one point the vampire hunter "hero" (I put hero in quotes because I love vampires, I always root for them in the movie) sits next to a girl in a bar who starts talking to him almost immediately. Soon...she says something that sounds very suspicious. This alerts our "hero" that something is up. He excuses himself and from the corner, starts scanning the bar with his infrared scope. Person after person shows red with a temperature reading of 98 until we reach our girl at the bar...who shows BLUE with 41 as her temp!

No. No. NO!

There are two problems with this scenario. One I can forgive and one I can't.

#1: Every single human shows 98F. Without exception. 

98.6F is the average human temperature. As anyone who has looked at statistics with any amount of attention will tell you, there is always some variability to an average. With human body temperature there is actually very little variability. It's not as if some people have a 50F temperature and another has a 147F temperature, and the average is 98F. No, humans are around 98F because there is a very small range that allow a human to survive and function. Even still, some healthy people have temperatures of 97F (yours truly) and others of 99F and that is fine. Ok, we'll forgive the movie this one. Perhaps his scope doesn't have the greatest sensitivity to differentiate that.

#2: The vampire is 41F.

NO! I should point out at this point that our characters are in New Mexico. They are wearing t-shirts and light jackets so we can safely assume ambient temperature is around 70F or so, but the vampire is so cold, she may have walked out of a fridge. Unforgivable!

Unfortunately, this error is repeated time and time again in any story where vampires are present. Movies, books; even the very, very popular Twilight series makes this error throughout the series. The couple even go to a tropical island where our vampire lover acts as a type of air conditioner for his human wife. No, No, NO!

Let me explain: The theory behind this is that vampires are dead and corpses are "cold" so vampires are cold, thus 41F is acceptable. Scientifically speaking, that doesn't fly. (Yes, I realize we're arguing science in fantasy, but we're going to do it anyway.)

The reason a corpse is cold to the touch of a living person, is that, as stated above, our temperature runs around 98F. Anything cooler than 98F feels cold to the touch. Don't believe me? Touch a part of our desk that you're not touching right now. Cool to the touch right? A dead body is one in which all metabolic processes has ceased (or are as close to stopped that they might as well be). The body is no longer producing heat and so begins to cool to ambient temperature. If the room is 65F and a person dies in it, they will begin to cool from their 98F starting point to room temperature.

This is important because in forensics, time is very important. It doesn't matter if it's a DUI, a sexual assault or an overdose. When it happened matters. We must have a time-line to the best of our ability. One of the ways to tell how long a person has been dead, is their body temperature. Bodies cool at a certain rate. This rate of cooling can be affected by several factors including ambient temperature and their condition prior to death. Even with those factors, an examiner can use body temperature (assuming it is above ambient) to provide a window for the time of death.

The important point are these words: "the rate of cooling." Cooling. The body is cooling from 98F to ambient temperature because it is no longer producing heat. This lack of heat production means the body cools. The body is not producing cold. The morgue is cold (parts of it) because the bodies are refrigerated, it is not because the corpses are producing the cold to air condition the place. That's just silly.

If a corpse was being examined and it's body temperature was 41F we would have to assume that either it was found outside in winter or the body has been refrigerated. (Or perhaps the body was frozen and now it is warming to room temperature.)

So, if vampires are corpses and that is why they are cold then why is our vampire 41F in New Mexico? She wouldn't be. She would be ambient temperature if we assume that vampires do not produce their own heat. Our movie could have done the same scene and shown the vampire blue with a temperature of 70F and our "hero" still could have been suspicious without destroying any scientific integrity.

Now, to continue the logic that the vampire does not produce heat and will be ambient temperature means that they will also be warm at times. If it were summer time in New Mexico as opposed to winter, our  "hero" could have looked through the scope and seen our vampire at 105F. Not as dramatic, but it could be true. In that case, our southern vampires of the "True Blood" series should be fairly warm in most cases and may even be warmer than the humans, since humans have the ability to cool our temperature as part of our regulation so we don't overheat. Can you fry an egg off a vampire in Death Valley? Maybe. This would also pose some problems for the "30 Days of Night" vampires in Alaska since they would be frozen.

Anyways, I digress. If we are to assume that vampires are cold because they are corpses and corpses are cold, then we must focus on the science. Dead bodies will cool to ambient temperature, but they will not produce cold. Therefore, the movie in this case, and the Twilight series has it plain wrong. Our vamps would be more like 65F (though we wouldn't be able to estimate their time of death.)

Friday Cartoon

Back to Basics

This past weekend I attended a martial arts seminar taught by the amazing Grand Master Steve Shover. At one point during the seminar I was actually stunned. Not from something flashy or complicated, but by something so simple and based on our timeless mantra, "where the head goes, the body will follow."

After trying the technique I laughed and asked my partner "Why didn't I ever think to do that?" In ten years of doing martial arts and facing that exact attack in the dojo, I had never once thought to counter it in that manner. Part of the problem is the noted ten years of training. We try to complicate things and do something fancy and we forget that sometimes the simplest way is the best way.

As scientists we are notorious for doing the same thing. (There is nothing in this universe more complicated than getting a group of scientists together for a social gathering.) I've had many head slap moments in the laboratory when my troubleshooting turned out to be something very simple. The problem is the same as mine in the martial arts context. We have enough experience to try to make it complicated. We start looking at ramp temperatures or replacing parts before realizing the gas isn't turned on or the needle is bent. We forget the basics in our focus on the details.

I found myself having to remind myself of the same thing on the stand. When you could recite a treatise on the question it's difficult to pull yourself back and focus on what the examiner is truly asking. It's excellent practice however and can help you to focus back on the basics. After all, going off on tangents to fully explain the question as we would in a scientific community is not useful in the court setting and defeats our purpose as an expert witness, which is to clarify the information for a layman. I truly believe that every chemist should go through a mock exam before launching into courtroom testimony. As scientists we have a hard time focusing on the basics and simply answering the question, but that is what's necessary to be an effective expert witness. Not only that but focusing on the basics can also help your troubleshooting abilities in the laboratory.

In martial arts, the best way to understand a technique is to teach it. This is because when you explain it to someone without experience (the fact finder) as opposed to when you discuss it with another of equal rank (the scientific community), you have to focus on the basics and in doing so you remember the basic principles involved and it allows you to apply those principles to the complicated stuff. The same applies for science. Keeping the basics, front and center, and keeping in mind simplicity, not only helps your testimony in the courtroom, but also keeps them in front when you are troubleshooting or developing a new method in the laboratory.