Woman Fired for Performing DNA Test

State forensics scientist Ann Chamberlain of Okemos, MI, testified in a March 7 divorce hearing that she ran the test last September on the underwear of Charles Gordon Jr. Asked by his attorney what she found, she answered: “Another female. It wasn’t me.” She said during another hearing that she ran the test on her own time with expired chemicals that were set to be thrown away. However, state police policies dealing with the care and use of property state that “department supplies, materials or equipment shall not be used for any non-duty or non-department purpose.”

DNA testing is a reliable piece of evidence for forensics departments. This sounds like an effective way to determine infidelity. When hair in someone's underwear does not match the owner or the owner's significant other, one must question how it arrived in that location.

A forensics scientist has access to all necessary supplies for DNA testing. Should he or she use them for personal use? Assuming Ann is not lying about her testing procedures, chemicals designated for the trash have the right to be used. (This belief could find a slippery slope in the topics of embryonic stem cells or nuclear waste.) But the agency had a written policy on this exact subject.

Given the facts in the story, should Ann be fired? She could get away with anything in private, but her testing became public knowledge in divorce proceedings. Whether public or private, the ethics involved are complicated.

Should she be fired for her actions? Was there a history of disregard for the rules? Do other cases exist that support the state's actions? Could she be reprimanded instead of removed from her position? Because the questions go on and on, there will likely be appeals filed soon.