Thailand has her 'Dr Death'. Malaysia has her 'killer' DNA expert, Dr. Seah

Aussie DNA expert says local scientist could have ‘killed’ someone

UPDATED @ 04:44:43 PM 25-08-2011

By Debra Chong

August 25, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 25 — Government scientist Dr Seah Lay Hong would have lost her job if she worked in Australia, a foreign DNA expert told Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy trial today.
Consultant molecular geneticist Dr Brian McDonald told the High Court that Dr Seah’s casual attitude in learning that two containers holding DNA samples that were likely mislabelled and doing nothing about it was a “sackable offence”.
Dr Seah is the government’s DNA expert who had allegedly told the court to give the benefit of the doubt when questions were raised over the dates on two containers holding DNA samples sent to her for analysis.
Both containers bore labels that were dated June 26, 2008.
Anwar is charged with sodomising former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan in a Damansara Heights condominium on the same date.
The court has been told the complainant was swabbed for test samples of his DNA only after seeing doctors two days later, on June 28, 2008.
Dr McDonald, who was briefed of the history of the case, said such a labelling meant one of two things, either the samples were indeed taken on June 28, 2008; or the samples were labelled wrongly.
“This is a sackable offence,” he testified.
“You could kill someone. If you change something on a medical result, you could kill someone,” he said.
Dr McDonald explained that the proper thing to do would be to verify with the source if there has been a mistake and move quickly to correct it and have those steps recorded.
The Australian scientist, who is a witness for Anwar’s defence, was replying to questions from lawyer Ramkarpal Singh Deo.
“If it’s a mistake, you have to correct it and document it. You have to do something. It’s not an option that is open to the recipient,” he stressed.
The court was told there was no record of any such correction made.
Dr McDonald also appeared surprised by the high sperm count recorded during the laboratory analysis of the swab samples collected from the complainant.
He explained to the court that such density is normal only if recorded within the first six to eight hours after ejaculation.
He said he had expected to see a very low sperm count, if any, because the samples were collected close to 100 hours after and stored in less than optimal conditions.
The defence had highlighted the samples swabbed from Saiful’s anus were also stored in an airtight receptacle and kept in a locker at room temperature, which Dr McDonald said went against fundamental laboratory practices.
He said the samples should have been smeared onto a glass slide, air-dried and immediately frozen at -20 degrees Centrigrade, to stop the growth of bacteria from destroying the sperm cells.
Ramkarpal then asked if it was “reasonable to infer that the samples collected from the complainant were not the same as the samples analysed by Dr Seah?”
“The bells would be ringing to me as a scientist. I would be alerted to the results that are inconsistent with the history [of this case],” Dr McDonald replied.
The trial will resume tomorrow with the Australian back in the witness box.