B y now the whole literate world knows that a United States president can be cajoled into admitting wrongdoing based on a DNA test. Just what does this mean?

DNA is a chemical shorthand name for the genetic substance in all of our cells. It is what makes you you and makes me me. With the exception of identical twins, no two people have the same DNA. DNA is the building block of genes and genes make up the 46 chromosomes in most human cells. All living things produce DNA because all living things reproduce and pass their individual characteristics onto their offspring.

In the last decade considerable advancements have been made in isolating DNA, comparing different DNA, and even mapping out what genes control what in the offspring. This remarkable technology will bring a new revolution in plant and animal breeding. And as an offshoot, the technology is being dragged into the courtroom as another tool in identifying people.

For over one hundred years the value of fingerprinting has been known. No two fingerprints are alike (and better than DNA -- even identical twins have different fingerprints). This has been useful in identifying perpetrators of crimes, and police "dusting" of crime scenes for fingerprints has long ben a Hollywood cliché.

Is DNA better than fingerprinting? Some might argue that it is. Often there are no usable fingerprints to be found at the crime scene. But careful, microscopic investigation may reveal bits of hair, skin or fingernails left behind. So it would seem that this is a very powerful forensic tool whose truth cannot be denied. It is modern science, it HAS to be perfect.

But wait. Is it really that good? Fingerprints have the distinct advantage in that the owner's hand had to have been present on the crime scene at some point. It is hard to falsify fingerprints, maybe impossible.

Take that unwashed, sordid, semen-soiled gown that has become so famous. It is entirely possible for someone to frame a president by creating a stain that contains a person's DNA without that person actually having made the stain. A few strands of hair collected elsewhere, pulverised, genetically amplified and added to some organic carrier like glycerin, could be used to "prove" some act when in fact the act did not take place.

There are some artists who have decided to ensure the authenticity of their works after they are dead, by signing their works with DNA-filled ink. This is dangerous. Why not a fingerprint? With DNA one can imagine a counterfeit operation that finds a way to get fingernails or pulled-out hairs (only the hair root contains DNA, however).

Crimes themselves may be executed to frame an innocent person. Imagine that a certain person has the motive to murder another, and then come forward as a witness to testify against an innocent third person. If he is sure that the accused had no alibi, and had collected a few hair samples casually over a few months time, it would be possible to plant these at the crime scene and, if no other evidence existed, to potentially send an innocent person to prison.

So what is this DNA? It is a scientific breakthrough that must be used with care and with its full limitations known. High-tech science may be absolute and convincing, but in the hands of humans, things can go wrong.

Fingerprints need fingers present, DNA does not.

DNA -- is it a Dangerous New Advancement?

This is a true story. I lived in Solo, an old royal kingdom town in Central Java, from 1980 to 1985. When I arrived I brought along a personal computer, one of the first ones in town. By the time I left they were everywhere and several computer shops had sprung up. Progress was inevitable. But this is not about computers. It is about language learning and how the author of a simple introductory book on Indonesian language affected the pre-conceived notions of a student through careless choice of materials.

It was around July 1983. An American friend of mine was halfway into a two-year research project on traditional shadow-play stories (wayang kulit). She had an old college friend from the USA who had moved to Norway in the 1970's, and through marriage to a Norwegian, had managed to settle there. But her friend wanted to come to visit during that summer, and to make the most of her planned two-month vacation, decided to learn some Bahasa Indonesia well before the trip.

It seems that locating any book on Indonesian language in Norway in the early 1980's was a considerable challenge. She went to Oslo and visited all of the book shops. Finally, after a considerable effort, she located an introductory book on Bahasa Indonesia, and set upon the task of learning basics--without a teacher.

Several months later, after having studied the basics, she made the long-trip and had arrived in Solo. She had been there for a week or two and was getting adjusted to a summertime climate with 12 hours of sunlight (a contradiction in Norway, of course). One day it happened that I was going somewhere at the same time as she, and I gave her a lift on my Yamaha motorcycle. As we drove about the city, navigating around three-wheel pedicabs (becak), bicycle traffic and the odd ox-drawn cart, she asked me a curious question.

"Where are all of the camels?"

"Camels?" I responded, thinking it quite a strange question indeed.

"Yes, camels--I had the impression that there would be lots of camels in Indonesia."

Well, loose chickens, goats, cats with haphazard tails, becak-s, goats in becak-s, beggars, and children, lots of children -- yes these for sure were to be seen -- but, but... camels?

I explained that I had not once seen a camel in my three years in Java, and admitted that I had only recently learned the word for camel myself, rather by means of a lucky coincidence, since there was a small shop not far from where I lived that was called Toko Unta (Camel Store), and one of my methods for expanding my vocabulary was to learn the meaning of words I often saw on shops. When you see a foreign word often enough it ceases to be foreign in a sense, but without a meaning attached still is not a friend that you can mention to other people.

"What gave you the idea that there would be lots of camels?" I asked.

"Well in the book I bought in Oslo, on learning Bahasa Indonesia, the first chapter introduces the word 'unta', and I thought that if it was in the first chapter then 'unta' must be a VERY important word in Bahasa Indonesia, and obviously and important means of transportation."

What a book. It taught language but mis-taught the important aspect of the enveloping culture.

Later, when I had an opportunity, I looked at this strange book. Indeed, there it was, 'unta', in Chapter One. It also had other misleading words in the first several chapters, such as rabid dogs and petty thiefs. Not the best teacher of reality, in my opinion.

So if you ever want to learn Indonesian, beware of words like this. You might find "sombrero" in the Indonesian dictionary, but, despite the hot sun and tendency midday naps, you will not find a sombrero on or off of a head anywhere in Indonesia.

A fter living in Indonesia for well over a decade, I have come to accept the driving habits of Indonesians. I don't bat an eye when drivers cut me off or merge into my lane just ahead of me. These are just some examples of what happens all of the time out in the traffic of Jakarta or any other city. But a first-time visitor from the West may have a different opinion. Let us see if this is justified, and see if it proves to be a case of a backwards country with the wrong system in place.

Western driving, especially the American version that I grew up with, is based on the premise of Right of Way. Drivers either have the right of way, or they don't. If you don't you must yield to the person who does. Thinking about this carefully, it would seem to be a kind of universal law, since two cars can't be in the same place at the same time if their drivers want to get home for dinner. Basic timesharing. There needs to be a system that ordains who goes ahead and who does not. Simple. Isn't this the same the world over?

No. We'll start with something simple. The Indonesian driver has a very differentconcept of right of way. Here the focus is not on who has the right to move, but rather who has the responsibility to not move, to yield to others. Now, this system also has to operate to keep its drivers coming home for dinner as well, since even here, as elsewhere in this universe, two cars had better not be in the same place at the same time. Newton, or Einstein, or somebody, said so.

So is there a difference? Isn't it just like saying that a glass is half full or half empty? Well no, it is not. It has to do with focus. Western driving assumes everyone is following the rules, which clearly give some the right of way while others must give up that right. That grand assumption is the source of errors and accidents that keep judges and insurance companies busy establishing who was really at fault when two cars defy physics and try very hard to be in the same place at the same time.

The Indonesian driver doesn't have to bother with these hair-splitting matters. It is simple: yield when someone else forces their way into your path. Never mind that it delays you and you have to take evasive action (although a squealing of brakes as a result of any other driver's actions is considered to be a breach of some unwritten rule; the trick is to take command of an opportunity without causing undue surprise to the other drivers whose responsibility it is to yield for you--if you are sure that they can safely slow down or, at worst, stop you have the right to make your move). The slight delay imposed on you will be paid back when you next have a similar opportunity to fill a small gap in traffic. It is, it seems, most equitable: all but the most timid drivers spend about half of the time yielding and the other half getting others to yield. A perfect give and take.

The Indonesian driver need not take a driving theory class where defensive driving is taught. Driving is a continual balancing act of defense and offense, of yielding their place and stealing a new place. The absolutely great part of this system is that it assumes a negative state, a state in which both drivers first and foremost are ready to yield to the other. Split-second uncertainty here means that neither will make a potentially dangerous move.

The Western system, quite reversed from this as it may seem by now, assumes a positive state in which two drivers may occasionally, even for a split second, think that they have that fabulous, law-ordaned right of way. The unerring assurance that they do have that right is manifest in increased foot pressure on the accelerator and an attitude that seems to say "look out, I have the right of way here." Surprises can result: rubber marks can be imprinted onto the roadway for police to measure, Einstein's Laws of Relativity and the laws of physics can be proven, and people can indeed miss dinner.

People, being imperfect creatures, often forget the complex rules that must exist to uphold a right-of-way system and, regrettably, make errors of judgement. A system that is based on a responsibility to yield doesn't need many rules to keep everyone enveloped in a certain cloud of safety regardless how haphazard and unregulated it may seem upon the first encounter by a "Right-of-Wayer". It moves heavy traffic rather well, through intersections where there is no traffic light, or too often where the light is out of order, through converging and diverging flows at a roundabout (traffic circle) and around slower vehicles on narrow undivided highways.

There is at attempt underway in Indonesia to fix what I see isn't so badly broken, to paint no-passing lines on highways, to put in more traffic lights, to put up other road warning signs, and to educate drivers to follow rules that most people do not know and were never tested for (licenses can easily be bought, sans test). It is just another one of the many attempts at Westernization. But why, I ask, adopt a system that comes from a place that is so backwards? Will it bring with it a pervasive sickness that is totally absent here: Road Rage? I hope not.