Alec Jeffreys, one of the scientists who discovered genetic 'fingerprinting' in 1984, has recently restated his opposition to the current DNA database in the U.K. Under U.K. law, there is a database set up to retain the DNA 'fingerprints' of all criminals. In addition to all convicted criminals, though, it also contains the DNA of persons who have been acquitted of crimes, leading to potentially labelling an innocent person as "guilty" because of their inclusion in the database.
Dr. Jeffreys has advocating for the last several years for a national database that includes the genetic 'fingerprint' of all U.K. citizens that could be used for very limited purposes and would be overseen by a separate governing body. This would, he says, eliminate any discrimination that might ensue from having one's DNA included in the database. Further, he calls for the destruction of the original sample and to require police to go to court to obtain the identity and address of a person who matches the DNA information they find at a scene. He believes this will force the police to look strictly at the information in front of them and not be biased by external factors (such as knowing the the name of the person whose DNA sample in the database is Saudi Arabian may prejudice the police into thinking there is a match). As Dr. Jeffreys notes, the current method of generating genetic fingerprints for law enforcement does not conclusively put together Person A with his DNA. While a forensic scientist should be checking for repeats of about 10 different sequences, in reality the DNA sample may be of poor quality and the scientist can only check for 3 or 4 different sequences, which can remarkably increase the chance of a mismatch.
His proposal is definitely thought-provoking. In an age where there is an ability to have this sort of crime-fighting tool which could be extremely useful, there is also, obviously, the risk that it would be misused. There is also a risk regarding the security of the information and having to protect it against hacking and "disgruntled employees" who may sell the info or access to the info.
Most American civil rights groups would likely fight hard against the establishment of such a database, pointing to the numerous ways that the information would be misused and the encroachment it could pose on civil rights. It's possible, though, that an administration could play on the fears of the American public and push the database through stating that it could help at immigration and custom checkpoints and, in the end, clear innocent people of crimes. Perhaps the legislature would have to define a standard that any DNA evidence must meet before it would be admitted, such as the forensic scientist would have to prove that he/she did check 10 different sequences and thus the chance of a mismatch was only 1 in a billion.
Having such a database in place forces the public to place a lot of faith in its leaders that the information would not be used for nefarious purposes, or even just result in having innocent people originally targeted for crimes. And one wonders if at a certain point whether all of the precautions that the public would want in place to safeguard against misuse would end up hampering, not helping, law enforcement.
Comments