Tech is in Bloom for Spring!

It’s currently spring at Georgia Tech, which means tons of flowers are in bloom. Around the end of March and beginning of April, students, staff, and visitors can all take a walk around campus to take in the natural beauty of Georgia Tech. 

Here are some of the plants that they may run into:

Piedmont Azaleas: 

One of the first few flowers that one might notice around Tech are the Piedmont Azaleas, which often grow in bushes on the walkway up to the Howey Physics building.

The Piedmont Azalea, also known as Rhododendron canescens, is a flower native to Georgia. These azaleas bloom early in the spring, from mid-February through March (Wade, Braman, & Woodward, 2022).

They tend to grow in the earlier parts of spring and produce a sweet, musky scent in the air. (Yadav et al., 2019). These flowers often attract a number of pollinators, including butterflies, bees, and hummingbirds. 

 

Flowering Dogwood:

Outside the Kendeda building also lies flowering Dogwood trees, which are known as the Cornus florida.

These trees are often planted throughout Georgia as ornamental trees. This means that the trees are mainly planted for display rather than a more practical function. 

However, the species can be extremely beneficial to the environment. Dogwood trees produce leaf litter that decomposes rather quickly, which can improve the soil quality (USDA). Additionally, the plant is an extremely important part of calcium cycling. Plants need calcium to survive, as it is extremely important to the structure of cell walls and plasma membranes. Flowering dogwood trees draw calcium from the soil, cycling it into a more usable form for other plants. (Borer, Sapp, & Hutchinson, 2013).

 

Philadelphia Fleabane:

Around the Center Street South apartments are the Philadelphia Fleabane, which are also known as the Erigeron philadelphicus.

These are common wildflowers that grow in moist regions of the United States. They are often considered as weeds if they are not managed properly. This does not mean that they are invasive, but rather that the plant can grow in unwanted spaces if they are not managed properly. 

They most commonly bloom during the spring. The flowers will remain open throughout the day time and close back up during the night.

Throughout history, these flowers have had a number of uses, especially in Native American populations. The Philadelphia Fleabane has been made into tea, burned as incense, or simply chewed to treat the common cold in the past (USDA). 

 

Oakleaf Hydrangea:

Finally, we have the Oakleaf hydrangeas, which are generally grown in shrubs near the Klaus and Van Leer buildings towards late spring or early summer. These are also known as Hydrangea quercifolia, and they can be found blooming throughout campus. The flowers are native to the southeastern parts of the United States, where they begin to bloom in the early parts of summer.

The plants grow in shrubs, with many cone-like structures that eventually bloom with cream-colored flowers. They are more known to be planted for ornamental purposes.

Although the hydrangea pictured is native to Georgia, there are other species of Oakleaf hydrangeas that were specifically bred for their looks. For example, universities from multiple states in the southeast came together to cultivate the Ruby Slipper Oakleaf. It is a hybrid that starts off white just like the flower pictured and later turns a deep red color as it ages (Reed, 2010).

 

Works Cited:

Borer, C.H., Sapp, S.G. & Hutchinson, L.H. (2013). Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida L.) as mediator of calcium cycling: new insights are revealed by analysis of foliar partitioning. Trees 27, 841–849 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00468-012-0838-9 

Georgia Native Plant Society. (n.d.). Piedmont Azalea (rhododendron canescens). GNPS https://gnps.org/plant/piedmont-azalea-rhododendron-canescens-2/ 

Reed, S. M. (2010). ‘Ruby Slippers’ and ‘Munchkin’ Oakleaf Hydrangeas. HortScience, 45(12), 1908–1909. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.45.12.1908 

United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service, USDA. (n.d.). PHILADDELPHIA FLEABANE Erigeron philadelphicus L.. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/DocumentLibrary/plantguide/pdf/cs_erph.pdf 

United States Department of Agriculture National Resources Conservation Service, USDA. (n.d.). FLOWERING DOGWOOD Cornus Florida L. https://plants.sc.egov.usda.gov/DocumentLibrary/plantguide/pdf/pg_cofl2.pdf 

Wade, G. L., Braman, K., Woodward, J. W., (2022) Selecting and Growing Azaleas. UGA Cooperative Extension Bulletin 670. https://fieldreport.caes.uga.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/B-670_6.pdf 

Yadav, L. K., McAssey, E. V., & Wilde, H. D. (2019). Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Rhododendron canescens, a Native Azalea for Urban Landscaping. HortScience, 54(4), 647–651. https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI13840-18 

 

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.