#dna sampling

Global DNA Sampling Swab Industry 2016 Market Overview, Size, Share, Trends, Analysis, Technology, Applications, Growth, Market Status, Demands, Insights, Development, Research and Forecast 2016-2020.

The market intelligence report is a thorough analysis of the situation of the global DNA Sampling Swab market. An in-depth investigation of the present market scenario, past progress, and future prospects of the global DNA Sampling Swab market has been offered in the report. The publication also reports the main strategies, market shares, and products of the leading companies in operation in the global DNA Sampling Swab market.

To Get Sample Copy of Report visit @ http://www.qyresearchreports.com/sample/sample.php?rep_id=845180&type=E

The report provides a comprehensive outline of the global market for DNA Sampling Swab based on prime parameters such as end user, technology, applications, products, and regions. The estimated volume and revenue growth of the global market for DNA Sampling Swab over the forthcoming years has also been mentioned in the market intelligence publication. The study additionally deals into the key geographical segments of the global DNA Sampling Swab market and delivers details about their former and current shares. The trends dominant in the global DNA Sampling Swab market have also been underlined in the report. The market study provides a valuation of the aspects that are anticipated to impact the growth of the market in an undesirable or constructive way. The global DNA Sampling Swab market has been systematically examined with regard to the corresponding market segments and conjecture period. Each year within the individual timeline has been concisely considered in terms of the worth of the produce in the regional as well as global market.

To give a clear view of the global DNA Sampling Swab market, the competitive landscape has been gauged and put into view along with the value chain analysis. Evidence on current and introduced research and development projects and funds for innovation has been delivered in the report.

Browse Complete Report with TOC @ http://www.qyresearchreports.com/report/global-dna-sampling-swab-market-research-report-2016.htm

Table of Contents

Global DNA Sampling Swab Market Research Report 2016 1 DNA Sampling Swab Market Overview 1.1 Product Overview and Scope of DNA Sampling Swab 1.2 DNA Sampling Swab Segment by Type 1.2.1 Global Production Market Share of DNA Sampling Swab by Type in 2015 1.2.2 By Handle: Polypropylene;Polystyrene;Wood 1.2.3 By Tip Material: Foam;Flock;Cotton 1.2.4 Type III 1.3 DNA Sampling Swab Segment by Application 1.3.1 DNA Sampling Swab Consumption Market Share by Application in 2015 1.3.2 Application 1 1.3.3 Application 2 1.3.4 Application 3 1.4 DNA Sampling Swab Market by Region 1.4.1 North America Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.2 Europe Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.3 China Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.4 Japan Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.5 Southeast Asia Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.4.6 India Status and Prospect (2011-2021) 1.5 Global Market Size (Value) of DNA Sampling Swab (2011-2021)

2 Global DNA Sampling Swab Market Competition by Manufacturers 2.1 Global DNA Sampling Swab Production and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.2 Global DNA Sampling Swab Revenue and Share by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.3 Global DNA Sampling Swab Average Price by Manufacturers (2015 and 2016) 2.4 Manufacturers DNA Sampling Swab Manufacturing Base Distribution, Sales Area and Product Type 2.5 DNA Sampling Swab Market Competitive Situation and Trends 2.5.1 DNA Sampling Swab Market Concentration Rate 2.5.2 DNA Sampling Swab Market Share of Top 3 and Top 5 Manufacturers 2.5.3 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion

3 Global DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue (Value) by Region (2011-2016) 3.1 Global DNA Sampling Swab Production by Region (2011-2016) 3.2 Global DNA Sampling Swab Production Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.3 Global DNA Sampling Swab Revenue (Value) and Market Share by Region (2011-2016) 3.4 Global DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.5 North America DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.6 Europe DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.7 China DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.8 Japan DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.9 Southeast Asia DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016) 3.10 India DNA Sampling Swab Production, Revenue, Price and Gross Margin (2011-2016)

For Latest QYResearchreports Press Release Visit @ http://www.qyresearchreports.com/press-releases.htm

Contact Us

Kuwait to DNA Test Everyone, Including Tourists. No Exceptions.

According to Traveller 24, Kuwait is going to become the first nation in the world to conduct total mandatory DNA tagging, which applies both to their own population and tourists.

The legislation that will make DNA tagging mandatory will come in effect later this year. After that each and every person entering the country will undergo a mandatory DNA sampling. This will be done by taking samples…

The US supreme court upheld a Maryland law that allows the police to take DNA swabs from anyone arrested, without a warrant. Photograph: Press Association A divided US supreme court ruled this week to uphold a Maryland law that allows the police to collect without warrant DNA material from persons who are arrested. The 5-4 decision was greeted with dismay by civil liberties advocates who see it as a body-blow to privacy and a further erosion of the US constitution’s fourth amendment, which is supposed to protect individuals from excessive government intrusion. The truth is, in an era of mass surveillance, we have little privacy left to lose – and the courts have shown little willingness to resist law enforcement claims that access to our personal and physical data is necessary for them to do their job.

This willingness to forgo the privacy of the many to identify the misbehavior of the few is already well established in America’s warrantless surveillance program. In January, President Obama signed into law a five-year extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that allows for the monitoring of personal phone calls and emails as long as one of the communicants is outside the US. We have also recently been given reason to believe that all our domestic phone calls may be “captured as we speak” and that no “digital communications are secure.”

If that is the case, one might think that our court system would at least want to investigate the possibility that the government’s warrantless surveillance might fall into the category of “unreasonable searches and seizures” that the fourth amendment is supposed to protect us from. Instead, this past February, the US supreme court rejected a challenge to FISA – prompting concerns it will never rule on the constitutionality of the warrantless surveillance law.

At the very least, it seems that the courts are reluctant to interfere with the government’s ability to gain access to our private and personal communications – the content of our minds, if you will – when national security and law enforcement agencies claim that this information helps them pursue their objectives. Now, with this warrantless DNA ruling, the court has paved the way for the erosion of our physical privacy as well.

In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that DNA sampling was merely a means of identifying a suspect, in the way that fingerprinting and photographing does, and claimed that when an officer makes an arrest supported by probable cause, taking a DNA swab was a “legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the fourth amendment.”

In a scathing dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia rubbished the notion that DNA sampling was nothing more than an identification tool, saying it “taxes the credulity of the credulous” to suggest that it was not going to be used to attempt to solve other crimes. While no one doubts that DNA samples are a useful tool for solving cold cases or exonerating the wrongfully accused, the concern shared by the minority dissent and civil liberties advocates is that using an individual’s DNA to investigate a crime when the state has no incriminating evidence against that individual represents a drastic overextension of police powers. As the ACLU’s national legal director Stephen R Shapiro, said in a statement:

“The fourth amendment has long been understood to mean that the police cannot search for evidence of a crime – and all nine justices agreed that DNA testing is a search – without individualized suspicion. Today’s decision eliminates that crucial safeguard.”

As regards the future of our genetic privacy, it’s important to note that the law upheld by the US supreme court ruling in the Maryland v King case only allows for DNA to be taken from people who have been arrested and charged with a serious crime, and that this DNA can only be tested after a judge has found there to be probable cause that the person has committed a crime. The attorney Michael Risher who authored the ACLU’s amicus brief in that case points out, however, that other states’ laws and the federal government allow the police to take DNA from people arrested for much less serious crimes, such as drug possession or intentionally bouncing a check. These laws also allow the government to have that sample analyzed even if the person is never charged and when there is no incriminating evidence.

The fear is that this recent decision has paved the way for these much broader laws that allow the violation of our fundamental rights to (genetic) privacy to be upheld also. As Scalia wrote in his dissent:

“Make no mistake about it: as an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.”

So, where does all this leave the fourth amendment and that supposedly inalienable right it bestows on us to be secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”?

Thanks to previous US supreme court rulings, we can be stopped in the street and frisked by police without probable cause for arrest. Our international phone calls and emails (and possibly our domestic ones) can be captured and recorded by the state. And now the court has paved the way for our genetic blueprint to to be made available to the government as well.

The branch of criminology that deals with solving mysteries related to a crime is forensic science. It deals with all kinds of evidences available in the form of bloodstains, hair strands and DNA to name a few. Forensic scientists get into the detail of every evidence to find out how the crime could have taken place. In addition, they link various details of the case to find out the criminal.

What Dr. Afridi actually did was concoct a pretextual vaccination program, whereby Pakistani children would be injected with a single Hepatitis B vaccine, with the hope of gaining access to the Abbottabad house where the CIA believed bin Laden was located. The plan was that, under the ruse of vaccinating the children in that province, he would obtain DNA samples that could confirm the presence in the suspected house of the bin Laden family. But the vaccine program he was administering was fake: as Wired‘s public health reporter Maryn McKenna detailed, “since only one of three doses was delivered, the vaccination was effectively useless.”