Awesome or somewhat creepy? What do you folks think?

[Playinghardball]

Found on the I fucking love science Facebook

A New York artist has been collecting DNA samples from the streets via discarded cigarette butts and gum to find out what that person might look like. A computer program analyzes the sample which feeds the image to a 3D printer that makes the sculpture.

More info: http://bit.ly/12zbade

[Lifelong Protester]

1. Creepy.

I am not interested in someone picking up my coffee cup from a trash bin then stalking me.

[Wounded Bear]

2. Hey, it's probably the world's best anti-littering campaign....

ever. And I mean fucking ever.



OBTW, I'll go with creepy.

[Fumesucker]

3. This should end women smoking at least and probably homophobes too

ETA: Up next on Science News, edible cigarette butts.

[JimDandy]

20. I missed the connection

you're trying to make. Why would women (as opposed to men) stop smoking if their DNA on cigarettes could help produce a depiction of their face, and how would DNA sculptures help ID homophopes? Help a woman and a non-homophobe out here.

[Bannakaffalatta]

4. creepy... also frickin weird ... and...

...and if some random guy can do it as a hobby, how come forensic labs are 2 months behind on requested DNA analysis, how come the police are not doing this routinely at crime scenes, and how come the justice department can't afford to do retroactive DNA tests on people convicted of capital crimes, who may be innocent?

[RevStPatrick]

5. It's crawsome.

Dude on the left looks like a friend of mine.
But he's a non-smoker...

[annabanana]

6. hokum.. How can this science even exist yet?

gender, race, age maybe
The rest?

pfft.

[Laelth]

8. Agreed. I am quite skeptical of this alleged breakthrough. n/t

-Laelth

[mopinko]

12. another vote for hokum.

i dont know any artists with that kind of dough.

[TreasonousBastard]

14. The article clearly says what markers she gets and uses, so...

the rest is speculation and nowhere does she claim these are accurate representations. (She'd need model releases if they were.)

It's not scientific facial recognition or reconstruction-- it's portrait art using science. The science part of it is here now, and getting better every day.

[Frustratedlady]

7. I find this so fascinating.

Why couldn't she do the same with DNA samples from suspected killers. I first heard of DNA during the Simpson trial. It would be interesting to see what came up from his sample. Just thinkin'.

[Live and Learn]

9. I'm going with extremely creepy. nt

[mzteris]

10. Awesome.

I just wish there were at least SOME examples of real people to match up to the sample sculptures.

[Buzz Clik]

11. Totally creepy.

[sakabatou]

13. Creepy

[Warpy]

15. I'd be more interested in seeing how close he's getting

Of course, the portrait would look like the person did between 18-22.

[JimDandy]

16. The only way I'd buy into this

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)

is if a researcher gave the artist several DNA samples of persons unknown to her, but known to the researcher, and she then produced 3-D sculptures that closely depicted what each of the persons looked like. A medical examiner wants to enlist her help by having her use this 3-D DNA sculpture printing technique in a cold case. How could he have any confidence in her results without having her do some kind of blind test like that?

[jakeXT]

17. She made one of her, but that's not scientific

Artist Heather Dewey-Hagborg and her DNA-derived self-portrait. Photo by Dan Phiffer.

Read more: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/artscience/2013/05/creepy-or-cool-portraits-derived-from-the-dna-in-hair-and-gum-found-in-public-places/

[JimDandy]

18. Yes, saw that in the article.

Surely she must have thought people would not find her project convincing without doing such a scientific blind test. I hope the Smithsonian wasn't bamboozeled, but, dang it, why didn't they require that before running this article?

[jakeXT]

19. Just in that example the eye color and the shape of her eyebrows are off