OK, so there's this astoundingly rare genetic mutation that causes some very (very, very) few people to be born without fingerprints.
Quick complete-geek aside.
...people with a rare disease known as adermatoglyphia do not have fingerprints from birth. Affecting only four known extended families worldwide, the condition is also called immigration-delay disease, since a lack of fingerprints makes it difficult for people to cross international borders.Sorry. I live for shit like that. It's the ultimate trivia answer. But that's not the point here.
In an effort to find the cause of the disease, dermatologist Eli Sprecher sequenced the DNA of 16 members of one family with adermatoglyphia in Switzerland. Seven had normal fingerprints, and the other nine did not.
Neither is the fact that the article goes on to explain that "immigration-delay disease doesn't come with any side effects besides a minor reduction in the ability to sweat." It seems that there are other print-suppressing conditions that also come with other side effects. So that sucks.
I just want to know one thing. When Rachel Kaufman wrote this for National Geographic, did she intentionally write the following sentence?
After investigating a number of genes to find evidence of mutation, the researchers came up empty-handed