>Exámenes selectividad inglés resueltos Andalucía

For many years, criminals have been identified and brought to justice because of a fingerprint that they left behind. Details of the technique of fingerprinting were published by British scientist Sir Francis Galton in 1892, and it became widely used as a reliable method of identification. In fact, a fingerprint was first used as evidence to convict a criminal that same year.

However, the use of fingerprints as evidence is not entirely foolproof. Many fingerprints are “latent”; that is, they must be treated with powdered chemicals before they can be seen, which may be inconvenient at the scene of a crime. Other fingerprints are incomplete, difficult to make a positive identification from, and so not very helpful to police. Because of these problems, DNA identification, or “genetic fingerprinting”, became popular in the 1980s. But now new methods of recovering and analysing fingerprints are causing a revival in the use of traditional fingerprinting.

Fingerprints are formed when fingertips, coated with fatty acids produced by the glands, make contact with most surfaces. Researchers are now examining these fat deposits to learn more than just the identity of the person leaving the prints. Scientists are already able to determine approximate age, as well as the use of certain drugs like tobacco. These new insights may have consequences in areas beyond crime detection. Analysing a fingerprint may eventually yield as much information about an individual’s health as a blood sample and it will certainly be less painful to produce!

So, with both traditional and DNA fingerprinting seemingly here to stay, will there be anything new for 21st-century detectives? Police may soon be able to make positive identifications using earprints. It seems that many burglars press their ear to a door or window before attempting a break-in, leaving a clear and unique print for police to trace.