SYDNEY, Australia -- A frozen piece of dog mess sitting in a Melbourne freezer could pull DNA testing from the realm of high-profile public figures like OJ Simpson and Bill Clinton right into the dirty domain of everyday life. The question at hand: Did "Dog X" leave behind something he shouldn't have on the beach in the suburban Melbourne village of Port Phillip on 16 August?
Graeme Smith, Port Phillip's general manager of animal services, claims the animal did. He witnessed the alleged act and confronted the owner, who denied her pet did the deed. That got Smith going: He issued the woman a $30 ticket but also took photos and a physical sample of the evidence, which remains on ice at the Victorian Institute of Animal Science.
If the woman doesn't pay the fine by 13 September, Smith plans to order a DNA test on the sample, offering it as "Exhibit A" in court, and he plans a DNA test on the dog too. It's unclear what the startled pet owner, who comes from another town, might mount for a defense. But even if Port Phillip wins the case, it is sure to be a money-loser for the town.
Court-admissible DNA testing costs about $232 -- largely due to the man-hours involved in supervising tests and compiling rigorous legal paperwork, said institute spokesman Nick Robinson. Cheaper DNA tests at the institute cost as little as $58, and costs should fall over time as technology improves, he said.
Already, canine DNA testing is commonplace at the institute, particularly to verify parentage for breeding purposes, Robinson said. In addition, the institute does a lot of DNA testing on behalf of Victoria's livestock industry in order to develop better wool-bearing sheep or milk-producing cows. The institute may soon be performing DNA testing on the feces of wild animals, such as foxes, as part of animal population and migration studies, Robinson said. But the Port Phillip dog-doo case would unquestionably bring DNA testing into a whole new realm, he says.
In 1996 the tiny, 150-inhabitant parish of Bruntingthorpe in Leicestershire, England, also considered DNA testing as a deterrent after an outbreak of sloppy animal manners led the parish council to briefly consider using either video cameras or DNA tests. While video cameras were deemed impractical, DNA testing was an option, particularly after council member Dr. Ian Eperon -- a biochemist at the University of Leicester -- reckoned it was feasible. But after a multi-week barrage of unwanted national publicity, the plan was quietly shelved when it appeared the parish's problem was due to a single senile collie later put out of its misery by its owner, a local farmer, Eperon said.
Two years later, Eperon still suffers the enmity of local pet owners. Nonetheless, he believes advances in DNA testing are likely to make such dog-doo detection practices more practical. Among other things, he said, uncontrolled dog feces can pose health hazards such as the introduction of nematodes, worms that can cause serious human health problems including severe headaches, bronchitis, even blindness.
During the media uproar over the town's plan, the idea was generally supported by local pet owners tired of being unfairly tarred with the brush of the negligent few. However, Eperon doubts the day will come when town officials can sweep an area once a week, picking up droppings, performing tests, and mailing out tickets. That's because animal droppings degrade over time, making testing more difficult.
