"K Barrett" wrote in message
. ..
[swnip]
As to your second point I agree. IMHO this policy changes the job
description from orchid judge to orchid cop, something I'm not trained
for. Its frustrating. How are you going to know beyond a shadow of a
doubt (or a preponderance of the evidence) that a plant was made with
hangianum? How are you going to know if that isn't mere jealousy? People
have been sued for less, or so I'm told.

Use of science! DNA fingerprinting should offer a reasoable means of
determining parentage, but based on a balance of probabilities. I don't
think there is a hope if providing a definitive proof beyond a reasoable
doubt. I certainly don't want to even consider trying to speculate about
what threshold probability of type I and type II error would constitute
proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If you want to do it seriously, you'd need
a global database that includes DNA fingerprints from as many specimens as
possible. This might become practicable if one could identify enough labs
to do DNA fingerprinting as an affordable cost and require all plants judged
by the various societies should be sampled for DNA.

Reliance on the available science, while not likely adequate for criminal
courts in many cases (for purposes of determining identity of two samples,
yes, but determining parentage probably not), would certainly eliminate the
kinds of biases with which you appear to be concerned. And if warranted,
the available science may be adequate to support decisions in civil cases.

Cheers,

Ted

--
R.E. (Ted) Byers, Ph.D., Ed.D.
R & D Decision Support Solutions
http://www.randddecisionsupportsolutions.com/
Healthy Living Through Informed Decision Making