Jury members were provided two sets of fingerprints as evidence in a homicide case. One set tested 5 markers and the other tested 10 markers. Both sets matched the defendant's profile. Which one is more reliable and why?

DNA markers are STRs or short tandem repeats, meaning that there are short sequences of DNA that are repeated. The more STR's that are seen through electrophoresis allows the test to be more discriminatory. This means that the more repeated DNA sequences there are the more it can be related to the individual and the more reliable it is. Therefore, the test with 10 markers would be more reliable DNA evidence against the defendant because there are more STR's in the sequence.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."