All right. We are over at the side bar. Mr. Neufeld, I anticipate that you are going to raise foundational objections at this point regarding Dr. Cotton's qualifications to be making these estimates. Do you want to put that on the record?
Thank you. There is two problems: One is that yesterday, I believe it was over my objection, the Court found her qualified to give expert testimony on statistical inferences to be drawn from evidence, but now we are talking about something even more complicated; we are talking about population substructure and the range of frequencies. And I think that that is something that falls directly within the expertise of a population geneticist or a biostatistician and merely not somebody who is merely a molecular biologist, such as Robin Cotton. And therefore, I don't believe there is a proper foundation for her giving an opinion on a range of frequencies or the range of variation in the world.
We are about to actually get into the calculations themselves. I think we are about to see numbers at this point, and I anticipated that Mr. Neufeld was going to make the objections so I figured we might--since we are getting a board up, we might as well do it over here.
Her qualifications are amply demonstrated under case law. The threshold for even reporting population frequency data are fairly low in comparison to a Frye hearing standard. And this witness I think has established not only her expertise in terms of education, but also training while at Cellmark for years. She is the supervisor of the reporting of frequency data and described the fact how the methods in place in the lab had been reviewed extensively by more than one population geneticist, including one on board who has verified that the methods that she is responsible for in the lab are appropriate.
I would just note that there is a difference between her role as a director of the laboratory being able to do calculations and report frequencies, as opposed to her making--giving expert opinions as to what the range of frequencies are in the world for different ethnic or racial populations. Those are two different things. You may have qualified to do the former, but that doesn't mean she is qualified to do the latter, and I don't believe there has been a sufficient foundation for the latter.
Just so the record is clear, there is a standing objection insofar as each time she either testifies to a frequency or testifies to population frequency ranges.
KEY QUOTEwe are talking about population substructure and the range of frequencies. And I think that that is something that falls directly within the expertise of a population geneticist or a biostatistician and merely not somebody who is merely a molecular biologist, such as Robin Cotton.
there is a difference between her role as a director of the laboratory being able to do calculations and report frequencies, as opposed to her making--giving expert opinions as to what the range of frequencies are in the world for different ethnic or racial populations.
Just so the record is clear, there is a standing objection insofar as each time she either testifies to a frequency or testifies to population frequency ranges.
She is the supervisor of the reporting of frequency data and described the fact how the methods in place in the lab had been reviewed extensively by more than one population geneticist, including one on board who has verified that the methods that she are responsible for in the lab are appropriate.