Something’s been puzzling me since I read about the Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) analysis on the remains of former Department of Public Works and Highways Undersecretary Catalina Cabral, whose lifeless body was recovered near a questionable infrastructure government project along Kennon Road, Benguet, on 18 December. It hits a little too close to home, both literally and figuratively.

A few years back, a distant relative decided to get one of those ancestry DNA kits for their lola. She was curious about her roots, and we thought it would be a fun surprise. The kit arrived from the US, the samples were carefully collected and sent back, and then they waited. And waited. She said her titas in their group chat gave weekly updates: “The lab received it!” “It’s in process!” “Two more weeks daw!” From the time they mailed it until they got the results, it took a solid seven weeks. That felt fast!

So, when I saw infectious disease expert Dr. Edsel Salvana’s now-viral Facebook post questioning how a DNA analysis on the late Cabral could have been completed in less than 48 hours, my first thought was, “Wait, how?”

Dr. Salvana, a scientist and newspaper columnist, wasn’t even making an accusation. He was just genuinely curious, using the hashtag #nagtatanonglang (just asking). He pointed out that in their research, even simple viral DNA sequencing takes about two weeks to turn around. He jokingly (but seriously) asked if they could send their research samples to this miraculously fast lab to speed things up.

He’s right to ask. DNA testing isn’t like a rapid antigen test. It’s a meticulous process. Extraction, amplification, sequencing, analysis — it takes time. Even in high-volume, well-equipped labs in the US and other advanced biotech hubs, a 48-hour turnaround for a forensic human DNA match is exceptionally rushed, not standard. 

It’s the kind of speed you might see in a fictional crime drama, not a standard government procedure.

In his follow-up, Dr. Salvana noted that a specific test — Polymerase Chain Reaction-Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) — could theoretically be performed that quickly, but it would require a high-volume lab with extensive experience, working through the weekend, and running several comparisons. 

That’s a lot of “ifs.” The public deserves to know which “if” applies here.

The online reaction was a mix of skepticism and dark humor, a response standard when something doesn’t add up. Comments ranged from “We’ve watched too many true crime documentaries!” to pointed questions about why DNA was prioritized over dental records and fingerprints. This public cynicism isn’t born in a vacuum. It’s born of a history of narratives that sometimes move faster than the facts.

Meanwhile, officials later clarified that the police identification of the body did not actually include DNA testing. So, where did this 48-hour DNA result story even come from? This gap between the initial media reports and the later clarification is exactly why questions like Dr. Salvana’s may seem pedantic but are essential.

It creates a drip-drip effect of public doubt. When the timeline of science is bent to fit that of a news cycle or an official narrative, it erodes trust. It makes people wonder: Is this a miracle of modern efficiency we should celebrate, or is something else being streamlined?

The DNA results for my relative’s lola eventually came in. They were detailed, fascinating, and they trusted and understood the process because it was slow and careful. Transparency in science isn’t about speed; it’s about the integrity of the method. The same with the news — it is accuracy over speed. 

When a result that should take weeks appears in two days, asking “how?” is never an insinuation — it’s the very basis of scientific inquiry and public accountability.

So, kudos to Dr. Salvana for just asking. In our present society that is quick to accept headlines, asking for the methodology is not being skeptical for skepticism’s sake. It’s being a concerned citizen, more than anything else. 

Maybe, just maybe, it’s a tap on everyone — media, officials, and the public — that in the quest for answers, we shouldn’t sacrifice the “how” for the “how fast.” The truth, like a reliable DNA result, is worth the wait.