Close
Articles Story Time

Why Design?

November 1, 2022

One of the most challenging questions I am asked as a designer is why I chose the study path I chose. I am often asked Isn’t that just the same as being an art major? or Why not choose something more useful like Computer Science or Engineering? Sometimes, I ask myself those same questions. What exactly is it that I am doing?

In my mind, the word “design” brings up many different images. Often I will picture a fashion designer with measuring tape and a model in front of her, or a car manufacturer sitting in a dark room with only a lamp as a source of light sketching the future of the automotive industry. I even picture a mad painter brushing frantically across a canvas creating a new masterpiece. The word “designer” meant so many different things that it was nearly impossible for me to know the true definition. All I knew was that all designers shared a common trait: their creativity. And, as luck would have it, I would spend my first several years of life developing my creative side, leading me to where I am today.

 For as long as I can remember, I have loved making things. It sounds cliche, but it’s true. I used to collect scraps of paper, out-of-shape paper clips, and many other things considered “trash” and assembled them into tiny sculptures as gifts for my friends and family. I was especially guilty of trash collection in school. My 2nd-grade teacher constantly criticized my never-ending mess, until the end of the year came. She chose to look beyond the mess inhabiting my tiny desk and focused on the small figures. From there, she deemed me the “Class Creator”. It was one of the first memories I had where my art was recognized by someone who wasn’t a relative or a  friend of my parents. Of course, the support of my parents played a significant role in my decision. They were the ones to shine the light for me, guiding me to where I needed to go.

Fast forward several years and it’s finally time to apply to colleges. As a Junior in High School, I was expected to have already a list of schools I wanted to visit and, possibly, apply to. Like many others before me, I was completely lost on where I wanted to go, let alone study. I couldn’t decide if I wanted to go to a big or smaller school, out of state or in the state, and traditional or technical. This indecisiveness led me to begin my college search more locally because “it makes the most sense” as my mom put it. And she was right. I was enchanted by the schools neighboring my home: UGA, Emory, and Georgia Tech.

While filling out my applications, I was unsure what I wanted to study. In the end, I decided to apply for mechanical engineering programs. At the time, it seemed like a sensible choice, given that it involved the creation of things. However, engineering focused on the more technical aspects of design, the “mechanics” if you will. As cool as that sounded, the thought of performing primarily calculus as a career for the rest of my life terrified me. My life would become mathematics. My creativity would be confined to the laws of physics and thermodynamics. As much as I tried to convince myself that that was what I wanted, it wasn’t. 

Stumbling across the School of Industrial Design’s webpage was a godsend. It looked like what I imagined I would be doing as a mechanical engineer, only more eye-catching. I saw the beautiful designs that other students had developed and the effort they put into the aesthetics of the designs. It was everything I had been searching for. It was exactly what I wanted to do.

 

Industrial Design. The second I decided to scroll through the Launchpad Portfolio on this secret website I had just discovered, I fell in love. Hard. Seeing students take their artistic abilities and create new things for people not just to enjoy, but use? Everything changed for me there. No longer was I doubting the decision to transfer to Georgia Tech, I simply changed the way I went about it.  I finally understood what being a designer meant. My choice to become a designer has been one of my best.

Works Cited

https://www.degreequery.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/industrial-vs-eng-smart-660×445.png

https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.zXqHiS3fKQLuQQCC5Q9-IQHaCl?w=293&h=122&c=7&r=0&o=5&dpr=2&pid=1.

 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

shearwater bird
Articles, today i learned (til)
Marine Birds Fly Into Storms to Survive?
Articles
How to make glow in the dark cells
Story Time
Don’t call me bird-brained!
Articles
Music & Emotions: A Series (Part 3 – Indignant/Defiant)

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.