Evidence: well sourced. Imported from the supplied 65-Case Master Edition, dated September 19, 2026. Source links and classifications are retained as an attributed case account; import is not an independent source review.

Case at a glance

Case number
035
Date / range
2011–2012
Sector
Integrity, provenance, and laboratory failure
Genetic asset
Laboratory samples and a misleading partial profile
Security principle
Workflow Carryover and Contextual Review

Event summary

Adam Scott was wrongly charged with rape after contamination during laboratory processing produced a misleading partial DNA profile. The failure was compounded because evidence inconsistent with the alleged geography was not treated as a stop signal soon enough.

Source: gov.uk — Adam Scott / LGC Forensics Contamination source 1.

The case in context

The Adam Scott case locates the failure inside laboratory processing. Carryover produced a misleading partial profile, which acquired weight when it was treated as evidence of a person's presence. The regulator's report is the central source for the process failure and the missed opportunities to investigate it.

A match should not override incompatible contextual evidence without examination. Reconstructing the batch and handling history can be as important as repeating the final analysis. The case connects consumable use, contamination controls, and escalation procedures to a concrete consequence for the person wrongly implicated.

Acquisition and processing

prior sample → reused contaminated tray/component → partial profile → database match → charge and detention → contradiction review → error discovery

The sequence of events

  1. prior sample
  2. reused contaminated tray/component
  3. partial profile
  4. database match
  5. charge and detention
  6. contradiction review
  7. error discovery

What became inferable or exposed

Laboratory samples and a misleading partial profile

Adam Scott was wrongly charged with rape after contamination during laboratory processing produced a misleading partial DNA profile. The failure was compounded because evidence inconsistent with the alleged geography was not treated as a stop signal soon enough.

Security dimensions

Confidentiality

The confidentiality question concerns laboratory samples and a misleading partial profile. Exposure and further inference must be distinguished from the fact of collection or availability.

Integrity

The integrity question is whether the described material, permissions, processing, or interpretation can be relied upon. Workflow Carryover and Contextual Review identifies the particular boundary examined here.

Availability

Access and continuity are assessed for the described event; potential effects are not presented as confirmed outages or losses.

Provenance

The relevant chain follows laboratory samples and a misleading partial profile through the stages shown below. Missing public detail is not proof that internal records did not exist.

GeneticSecurity.org analysis

Genetic Exposure Radius

Not assessed

No single level is assigned where the supplied dossier gives a range, conditional outcome, or broad institutional consequence. The affected parties and proposed assessment are shown separately.

Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.

Genetic Persistence Risk

Not assessed

Persistence depends on the specific biological material or information retained. A potential effect is not treated as an observed genomic disclosure.

Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.

Genetic Provenance Integrity

Not assessed

A numeric provenance level is not inferred from the existence of a source or court record. It requires evidence of the relevant custody and processing controls.

Confidence: not assigned. Classification: GeneticSecurity.org analysis.

Proposed classification and its limits

Suggested GER: GER-0. Suggested GPR: GPR-2. Suggested GPI: GPI-0/1.

These are proposed classifications from the supplied case dossier. Conditional scores describe an assumed exposure; they are not evidence that it occurred. A single numeric value is left unassigned when the asset or outcome is not sufficiently bounded.

What this case does not prove

A DNA match alone did not establish presence at the crime scene, and the case does not establish malicious misconduct. Follow the regulator's findings.

Mitigations and lessons

  • Single-use enforcement
  • Physical workflow separation
  • Negative controls
  • Batch reconstruction
  • Geographic/contextual plausibility checks
  • No-charge-on-DNA-alone policy
  • Rapid escalation of anomalies

Primary sources

Secondary sources

No additional source listed. See the evidence notes for limitations.

Policy and standards

Genetic Security Policy and Standards

Review and correction history

Source edition: September 19, 2026. Imported case account; no substantive corrections recorded.

Correction policy and log

Cite this case

GS-CASE-035. Adam Scott: The DNA Match Created Inside the Laboratory. GeneticSecurity.org. https://geneticsecurity.org/cases/035-adam-scott-dna-laboratory-contamination/