Close
DIY

A Trip to the Atlanta Botanical Gardens

May 29, 2012 0Comments

This past month I had the absolute pleasure of visiting the Atlanta Botanical Gardens as part of class field trip with my BIOL 4440 Plant Physiology class. Located just up the street from Piedmont Park, a quick 10 minute drive or 30-40 minute walk (for those of us without cars on campus, cough cough, me) from Georgia Tech, the Gardens offer year round awesomeness. My first visit to the Gardens was free of charge thanks to Dr. Jerry Pullman, Georgia Tech’s one and only resident plant researcher. Dr. Pullman works with the Research and Conservation division of the Botanical Gardens to study native endangered plant species such as the Georgia Aster and various types of pitcher plants. Also due to Dr. Pullman’s sweet connections with the Garden’s staff, my classmates and I received a tour of the greenhouses led by the director of Research and Conservation, the lovely and informative Dr. Jenny Cruse-Sanders.

     Cruse-Sanders took us through several of the greenhouses that showcase different genres of botanical wonder. The pride and joy of the spring season is their Orchid collection, with a showcase called ORCHIDdaze which runs February through April before a “Gently Used Plant Sale” is held to sell the orchids to the public. However, the Gardens have orchids on display year-round with different seasonal displays and house an Orchid Reference Library for more bookish visitors, with public access available on Tuesdays. The Research and Conservation department runs a program for the restoration of the orchids native to Georgia. The Gardens also specialize in carnivorous plants, specifically Asian pitcher plants, Nepenthes, which can be seen in the Special Exhibits area of the Fugua conservatory. Also found in the conservatory are tropical conifers, some of which can be seen in the Tropical Rotunda, and Amborella, a rare genus of small trees native to New Caledonia and thought to be one of the earliest angiosperms.

      One the most enjoyable indoor exhibits for me was the Orangerie, which allows guests with the opportunity “to see, touch and smell some of the plants which are so important in our daily lives.” The Orangerie includes common foods such as vanilla, tea, coffee, cocoa, ginger, and many others. The botanical geek in me loved seeing these foods in the context of the whole plant, rather than just the isolated products.

     The Botanical Gardens work not only with plants, but also animals; in the tropical conservatory, quail and yellow saffron finches can be found among the underbrush and canopy, and snapping turtles and various types of frogs can be found in and around the water feature. My class was also treated to a tour of the amphibian displays and amphibian research lab by Amphibian Conservation Scientist, Dante Fenolio.

      The outdoor areas have much to offer as well, including The Edible Garden, The Rose Garden, The Southern Seasons Garden, a children’s area, and much more. The Gardens offer several events and classes, both delicious and educational, throughout the year, as well as volunteer opportunities. The garden is having an Endangered Species Day on June 2nd, where you can learn more about the work the Botanical Gardens do with rare plants and animals. Science Cafe is something I plan checking out soon, a climate change talk series held this May through October on the third Thursday of each month. The series will feature regional speakers discussing different aspects of climate change. This month’s lecture is titled “Pandora Botanicals: What kind of plants might grow on OTHER planets,” led by Dr. Angelle Tanner from Mississippi State University. More information on these events and other information about the Gardens can be found at http://www.atlantabotanicalgarden.org. Happy Exploring!

Tags:
0Likes
Destiny Cobb
About Author

Destiny is a 2nd year BME major/Bio minor at Georgia Tech and is a dancer, fencer, and Youtube/Tumblr junkie. Destiny spends most of her time being introvered, going to the Botanical Gardens, consuming absurd quantities of media whenever internet access is available, and reading loads about her varied interests (academic and otherwise), which include but are not limited to: neuroscience, genetics, astronomy, botany, tea, science fiction, and miming. She plans on pretty much living and working at universities for most of her future and looks forward to a career in research.

Leave a comment

You May Also Like

side profile of origami jellyfish robot
DIY, today i learned (til)
Origami & Bio-inspired Design
DIY
Glow in the Dark Nail Polish in Five Easy Steps
DIY, today i learned (til)
Let’s Go!: Costa Rica
DIY
Chemical Secrets Behind Dragon Beard Candy

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.