Close
Articles

DUIs and Driving While Sleep Deprived: The Dangerous Similarities

May 4, 2019

Life as a student can be frustratingly busy at times. In the most difficult periods, you have to complete multiple assignments simultaneously, all the while attempting to maintain a moderately healthy social life. You want to ace your tests, maintain your friendships, and visit your family regularly; maintaining balance among these goals is understandably difficult. When life becomes hectic, you may decide to vary from your typical routine, and one of the health behaviors that is often neglected is sleep.

Sleep deprivation is a common problem in the US. At least a third of adults don’t obtain more than 7 hours of sleep each night, and this is detrimental to physical, psychological, and cognitive health (CDC, 2016; Watson et al., 2015). Total sleep deprivation, or failing to obtain any sleep in a given night (i.e., “all-nighters”), is common in student populations; students have reported pulling all-nighters more than twice per month (Hershner & Chervin, 2015). This may be especially common during exam times. For example, students sometimes pull all-nighters in preparation for tests. However, these behaviors have consequences at the behavioral and neural level.

Sleep deprivation tends to increase activation in a control center of the brain, the prefrontal cortex, and this is thought to reflect increased effort to maintain cognitive control (Wilckens, Erickson, and Wheeler, 2012). For example, focusing attention and avoiding distractions may require more effort than when well-rested. Thus, studying all night could lead to undesirable consequences. Not only may students not retain crammed information over long time periods (e.g., weeks, years), but they may also experience dangerous psychomotor impairments (Durmer & Dinges, 2005).

Researchers have found that driving while sleep deprived is statistically equivalent to driving with a blood alcohol content level of being legally intoxicated.

Psychomotor impairments related to sleep deprivation directly affect driving ability. Researchers have found that driving while sleep deprived is similar to driving while under the influence. In fact, it is statistically equivalent to driving with a blood alcohol content level of being legally intoxicated. Those who drive while sleep deprived and those who drive while drunk have trouble maintaining their place on the road. They tend to accidentally cross into other lanes and look away from the road more often. Not surprisingly, the injury rate of motor crashes related to drowsy driving and drunk driving is similar.

As students, we are often warned about the dangers of drunk driving and distracting driving (e.g., texting, talking on the phone), but there is little attention given to the dangers of driving while sleep deprived. The evidence is clear in regards to the importance of obtaining enough sleep for general health and cognitive function. However, if you must miss sleep, please refrain from driving. Instead, call a friend or call another ride. Just as you wouldn’t drive while under the influence, don’t drive while sleep deprived.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2016). 1 in 3 adults don’t get enough sleep. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/p0215-enough-sleep.html

Durmer, J. S., & Dinges, D. F. (2005). Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation. Seminars in Neurology, 25, 1996. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2005-867080

Hershner, S. D. & Chervin, R. D. (2015). Causes and consequences of sleepiness among college students. Nature and Science of Sleep, 2014(6), 73–84.

Watson, N. F., Badr, M. S., Belenky, G., Bliwise, D. L., Buxton, O. M., & Buysse, D. (2015). Joint consensus statement of the American Academy of sleep medicine and sleep research society on the recommended amount of sleep for a healthy adult: methodology and discussion. Sleep, 38(6), 591–592.

Wilckens, K. A., Woo, S. G., Kirk, A. R., Erickson, K. I., & Wheeler, M. E. (2014). Role of sleep continuity and total sleep time in executive function across the adult lifespan. Psychology and Aging, 29(3), 658–665. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037234

Tags:
0Likes
About Author

Emily Hokett is a PhD student in the Psychology department. She studies relationships among sleep quality, circadian rhythm, memory, and aging. In her free time, she enjoys writing, running, cycling, and power lifting.

You May Also Like

Articles
From The Moon to Mars! (Artemis Mission Timeline)
Articles
The Einstein’s Ghost Tour Video!
Articles, Story Time
The Unbeatable Antibody Squad #1: Covid-19
Articles
The Good, the Bad, and the … Imaginary?

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.