Which provides better identification of an individual; fingerprints or DNA?

Answer 1

I think the number of people who said DNA is interesting, it's actually the wrong answer.

In the year between my undergraduate and postgraduate degrees I worked for the police in a forensic department and whenever we wanted to conclusively prove someone's identity we didn't use DNA, we used fingerprints.
One of the main reasons why is the existence of identical twins, their DNA will obviously be identical, however their fingerprints won't be. It is almost impossible to prove that something doesn't exist so the police have to assume that every suspect they deal with may have an identical twin.
Lots of people have picked up on the idea that fingerprint's can be changed, whilst this is true it is no where near as easy as many people think. In real life it's nothing like it is in Men In Black, there is no short sharp burning sensation and a "fingerprints erased" message. To permanently remove your fingerprints you will have to either slice off your finger tips (cutting well into the flesh under the skin) or burn them almost to the bone.
People also have the idea that DNA is completely static and unchangeable. Whilst this is largely true some medical conditions may alter your DNA (cancers and retroviral infections off the top of my head but there may well be others.) Also spontaneous cytogenetic changes will have a profound impact upon someone's DNA (especially if the changes occur in a stem cell.)
In short, if you want to conclusively prove someone's identity you don't reach for the test tube, you reach for the ink pad.

Answer 2

can it be both? id better go for DNA because no one can cheat ones DNA. unlike fingerprints can be cheated. there are many methods of providing an identification like the witness or a video that tells that this person is the one.

Answer 3

I would have to say DNA, because fingerprint analysis is as much an art as it is a science whereas DNA comparison is fairly straightforward. Different fingerprint experts see different characteristics in any given fingerprint, and there are differences in the number of "markers" required for a match depending on the examiner and laboratory. DNA results, however, leave very little room for subjective analysis, and are therefore much more reliable. (All this assumes, of course, that you are not one of those folks who disbelieve DNA evidence outright.)

Answer 4

It would depend on how many points of each there are being tested to match up. Using proper lab techniques I'd have to go with DNA as well, although there have been cases where both have been used to falsely identify people. (I.e. if on a DNA test all you're looking at are a handful of genes, then there's a chance there are several people that could match, or for fingerprint analysis if you're only looking at three or four points to match up then there are several people that could match as well. Modern labs know enough to avoid this.)

Answer 5

DNA. However, it is expensive to sequence DNA, so fingerprints are a cheaper, more practical method.

Answer 6

DNA.. Fingerprints are not as accurate as DNA

Answer 7

surely DNA, because DNA is the most significant factor to identify people. Moreover, it is easier getting DNA than observing fingerprints

Answer 8

There both unique in an individual. DNA can prove who you are and who you are related to.

On a deceist person who has started decomp DNA or teeth impressions would be better.

Answer 9

DNA, but DNA can contain mutations. Fingerprints are generally used, but they can be burned, and so forth...

Answer 10

both are unique to every individual the difference is that DNA testing is much more expensive