The goal of the MIC report on DNA typing was to answer a ''crescendo o
f questions concerning DNA typing,'' many of them in the areas of popu
lation genetics and statistics. Unfortunately, few of these questions
were answered adequately. In lieu of answering these questions, the pa
nel proposed another conservative method of forensic inference, the ''
ceiling principle.'' Aside from its extreme conservativeness, this new
method is difficult to justify because it is based on inadequate popu
lation genetics and statistical theory. Moreover, in its ultimate impl
ementation, the panel's method will depend on a population genetics st
udy whose rationale is questionable. In this article, we elaborate som
e of the general comments we made about the NRC report in a recent art
icle [1]. Specifically we cover three topics. First we question the st
atistical basis for the ceiling principle, showing that the empirical
results that motivated the method are likely to be misinterpreted and
showing, by power calculations, that the effects of population substru
cture cannot be substantial. Second, we show that the study design to
determine ''ceiling'' allele frequencies has several undesirable stati
stical properties. Finally, we discuss the estimation of handling erro
rs from the statistical perspective, a subject treated inadequately by
the report.