Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6d856f89d9-sp8b6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T08:21:58.961Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Key issues in DNA profiling and databasing: implications for governance

from Section 1 - Key areas in DNA profiling and databasing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 October 2012

By
Barbara Prainsack
Edited by
Richard Hindmarsh  and
Barbara Prainsack
Richard Hindmarsh
Affiliation:
Griffith University, Queensland
Barbara Prainsack
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

On 4 December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) delivered its Grand Chamber Judgment in the case of S and Marper v. the United Kingdom (2008). The judgment dealt a major blow to the national forensic DNA database (United Kingdom National DNA Database (NDNAD)) in England and Wales, the largest forensic DNA database in Europe. That judgment informs the purpose of this chapter, which is to review key issues of DNA profiling and databasing, many of which contribute to contesting forensic DNA technologies as an infallible means to truth finding in the criminal justice system (e.g. Lynch et al. 2008). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the implications that these issues have for the governance of DNA forensic profiling and databasing.

The case of S and Marper v. the United Kingdom (2008) was brought to the ECHR by Michael Marper and another young man known only as ‘S’, whose fingerprints and DNA profiles were stored in the English police database following their arrest in 2001. Charges had been dropped in both the case of Marper (arrested on harassment charges) and of S (at age 11 arrested for attempted robbery). In the absence of convictions, both men demanded their fingerprints and DNA data be removed from the database.

Type
Chapter
Information
Genetic Suspects
Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing
 , pp. 15 - 39
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronson, J. (2007). Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Balzacq, T. (2006). The treaty of Prüm and the principle of loyalty. http://www.libertysecurity.org/article1186.html (accessed March 2009).
,BBC News online (2009a). DNA data plan comes under fire. BBC News online, 7 May http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8038090.stm (accessed May 2009).
,BBC News online (2009b). ‘DNA bungle’ haunts German police. BBC News online, 28 March http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7966641.stm (accessed April 2009).
Bieber, F. and Lazer, D. (2004). Guilt by association. New Scientist, 184, 20.Google ScholarPubMed
Bieber, D., Brenner, C. and Lazer, D. (2006). Finding criminals through DNA of their relatives. Science, 312, 1315–1316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briody, M. (2004). The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bykowicz, J. and Fenton, J. (2008). City crime lab director fired: database update reveals employees' DNA tainted evidence, throwing lab's reliability into question. Baltimore Sun, 21 August http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_city/bal-te.md.lab21aug21,0,1849069.story (accessed April 2009).
Chakraborty, R. and Ge, J. (2009). Statistical weight of a DNA match in cold-hit cases. Forensic Science Communications, 22(3) http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/current/undermicroscope/2009_07_micro01.htm (accessed March 2010).Google Scholar
Chakraborty, R. and Kidd, K. (1991). The utility of DNA typing in forensic work. Science, 254, 1735–1739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cho, M. and Sankar, P. (2004). Forensic genetics and ethical, legal and social implications beyond the clinic. Nature Genetics Supplement, 36, S8–S12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole, S. A. (2001). Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
,Council of Europe (1950). Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Strasbourg: Council of Europe http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/QueVoulezVous.asp?NT=005&CL=ENG (accessed February 2010). For a list of signatory states see http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?NT=005&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG (accessed January 2009).
,Council of the European Union (2008). Decision 2008/615/JHA: Decision on the stepping up of cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime (Prüm Decision). Decision 2008/616/JHA: implementation of Decision 2008/615/JHA. Brussels: Council of the European Union.
Cronan, J. (2000). The next frontier of law enforcement: A proposal for complete DNA databanks. American Journal for Criminal Law, 28, 134.Google Scholar
Curran, J. and Buckleton, J. S. (2008). Effectiveness of familial searches. Science and Justice, 48, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, J. Y. and Rudinow Sætnan, A. (2009). ‘It all happened so slowly’: on controlling function creep in forensic DNA databases. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 37, 83–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dierickx, K. (2008). The retention of forensic DNA samples: a socio-ethical evaluation of current practices in the EU. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 606–610.Google Scholar
Dolan, M. and Felch, J. (2008). The danger of DNA: It isn't perfect. Los Angeles Times, 26 December http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dna26–2008dec26,0,1922163.story (accessed February 2009).
Dror, I. (2009). On proper research and understanding of the interplay between bias and decision outcomes. Forensic Science International, 191, e17–e18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duster, T. (2004). Selective arrests, an ever-expanding DNA forensic database, and the specter of an early-twenty-first-century equivalent of phrenology. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. Lazer, D.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 315–334.Google Scholar
Duster, T. (2006). The molecular reinscription of race: unanticipated issues in biotechnology and forensic science. Patterns of Prejudice, 40, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
,European Court of Human Rights (2008). Grand Chamber Judgement S and Marper v. United Kingdom. Press release issued by the Registrar,4 December http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?sessionId=16773269&skin=hudoc-pr-en&action=html&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649&key=74844 (accessed February 2009).
,European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (2009). DNA-database management: review and recommendations http://kclmail.kcl.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=3a3df141f6834951be272a7dcc47a210&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.enfsi.eu%2fget_doc.php%3fuid%3d345 (accessed July 2009).
Felch, J. (2008). How reliable is DNA in identifying suspects? Los Angeles Times, 20 July http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/20/local/me-dna20 (accessed August 2009).
Felt, U., Bister, M., Strassnig, M.et al. (2008). Refusing the information paradigm: informed consent, medical research, and patient participation. Health, 13, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fimmers, R., Baur, M., Rabold, U.et al. (2008). STR-profiling for the differentiation between related and unrelated individuals in cases of citizen rights. Forensic Science International: Genetics Supplement Series, 1, 510–513.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid forensic science testimony and wrongful convictions. Virgina Law Review, 95, 1–97.Google Scholar
,GeneWatch (2005). The Police National DNA Database: Balancing Crime Detection, Human Rights, and Privacy. Bixton: GeneWatch.Google Scholar
Gilbert, G. (2006). CSI: The cop show that conquered the world. Independent, 19 December, 2–5http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/csi-the-cop-show-that-conquered-the-world-429262.html (accessed August 2009).
Gilbert, N. (2010). Science in court: DNA's identity crisis. Nature, 464, 347–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, E. (2008). DNA reviews: predicting phenotype. Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology, 4, 196–199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greely, H., Riordan, D., Garrison, N.et al. (2006). Family ties: the use of DNA offender databases to catch offenders' kin. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34(2), 248–262.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guillén, M., Lareu, M., Pestoni, C.et al. (2000). Ethical–legal problems of DNA databases in criminal investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 266–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haimes, E. (2006). Social and ethical issues in the use of familial searching in forensic investigations: insights from family and kinship studies. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 63–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hindmarsh, R. and Abu-Bakar, A. (2007). Balancing benefits of human genetic research against civic concerns: Essentially Yours and beyond – the case of Australia, Personalized Medicine, 4, 497–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoeyer, K. (2008). The ethics of research biobanking: a critical review of the literature. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 25, 429–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houck, M. (2006). CSI: reality. Scientific American, 295, 85–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Home Office (2009). Consultation paper: Keeping the Right People on the Database. Science and Public Protection. London: The Stationery Officehttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-2009-dna-database/dna-consultation?view=Binary (accessed May 2009).Google Scholar
Homer, N., Szelinger, S., Redman, M.et al. (2008). Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLoS Genetics, 4, e1000167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Innocence Project (2009). Website. www.innocenceproject.org/ (accessed 8 January 2009).
Jefferson, J. (2008). Cold hits meet cold facts: are DNA matches infallible?Transcript, 40, 29–33.Google Scholar
Jha, A. (2004). DNA fingerprinting ‘no longer foolproof ’: pioneer of process calls for upgrade'. Guardian, 9 September, p. 5http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/sep/09/sciencenews.crime (accessed January 2009).Google Scholar
Kahn, J. (2006). Genes, race, and population: avoiding a collision of categories. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1965–1970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahn, J. (2008). Race, genes, and justice: a call to reform the presentation of forensic DNA evidence in criminal trials. ExpressOhttp://works.bepress.com/jonathan_kahn/1 (accessed August 2009).Google Scholar
Kaye, D. and Smith, M. (2003). DNA identification databases: legality, legitimacy, and the case for population-wide coverage. Wisconsin Law Review, 3, 413–459.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. and Smith, M. (2004). DNA databases for law enforcement: the coverage question and the case for a population-wide database. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. Lazer, D.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 247–284.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. (2006). Who needs special needs? On the constitutionality of collecting DNA and other biometric data from arrestees. Journal of Law and Medical Ethics, 34, 188–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koops, B.-J. and Schellekens, M. (2008). Forensic DNA phenotyping: regulatory issues. Columbia Science and Technology Law Review, 9, 158http://www.stlr.org/volumes/volume-ix-2007–2008/koops/ (accessed January 2009).Google Scholar
Krane, D., Doom, T., Mueller, L.et al. (2004). Commentary on Budowle, B., Shea, B., Niezgoda, S., Chakraborty, R. CODIS STR loci data from 41 sample populations. Journal of Forensic Sciences (2001). 46, 453–489 (multiple letters). Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49, 1388–1393.Google Scholar
Kruse, C. (2010). Producing absolute truth: CSI science as wishful thinking. American Anthropologist, 112, 79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lander, E. and Budowle, B. (1994). DNA fingerprinting dispute laid to rest. Nature, 371, 735–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, D. and Meyer, M. N. (2004). DNA and the criminal justice system: consensus and debate. In DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice, ed. Lazer, D.. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 357–390.Google Scholar
Levitt, M. (2007). Forensic databases: benefits and ethical and social costs. British Medical Bulletin, 83, 235–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, W.-C. (2002). The prosecutor's fallacy: a pitfall in interpreting probabilities in forensic evidence. Medicine, Science and the Law, 42, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewontin, R. and Hartl, D. (1991). Population genetics in forensic DNA typing. Science, 254, 1745–1750.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lounsbury, D. and Thompson, L. (2006). Concerns when using examination gloves at the crime scene. Journal of Forensic Identification, 56, 179–185.Google Scholar
Lowe, A., Urquhart, A., Foreman, L.et al. (2001). Inferring ethnic origin by means of an STR profile. Forensic Science International, 119, 17–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lynch, M., Cole, S. A., McNally, R.et al. (2008). Truth Machine. The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCartney, C. (2006). The DNA expansion programme and criminal investigation. British Journal of Criminology, 46, 175–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M'charek, A. (2005). The Human Genome Diversity Project: An Ethnography of Scientific Practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M'charek, A. (2008a). Contrasts and comparisons: three practices of forensic investigation. Comparative Sociology, 7, 384–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M'charek, A. (2008b). Silent witness, articulate collective: DNA evidence and the inference of visible traits. Bioethics, 22, 519–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, E. (2007). The new forensics: criminal justice, false certainty, and the second generation of scientific evidence. California Law Review, 95, 721–797.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. and Morris, S. (2005). Juror understanding of DNA evidence: an empirical assessment of presentation formats for trace evidence with a relatively small random-match probability. Journal of Legal Studies, 34, 395–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neufeld, P. and Coleman, N. (1990). When science takes the witness stand. Scientific American, 262, 46–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
,Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007). The Forensic Use of Bioinformation: Ethical Issues. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethicshttp://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/bioinformationuse/publication_441.html (accessed January 2009).Google Scholar
Ossorio, P. and Duster, T. (2005). Race and genetics: controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. American Psychologist, 60, 115–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prainsack, B. (2007). Forum on the Nuffield Report: an Austrian perspective. BioSocieties, 3, 92–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prainsack, B. and Gurwitz, D. (2007). ‘Private fears in public places?’ Ethical and regulatory concerns regarding human genomic databases [editorial]. Special Focus Issue of Personalized Medicine, 4, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prainsack, B., Reardon, J., Hindmarsh, R.et al. (2008). Misdirected precaution. Nature, 456, 34–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Proff, C., Schmitt, C., Schneider, P.et al. (2006). Experiments on the DNA contamination risk via latent fingerprint brushes. International Congress Series, 1288, 601–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, J., Oorschot, R., Walsh, S.et al. (2008). Trace DNA analysis: do you know what your neighbour is doing? A multi-jurisdictional survey. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2, 9–28.Google Scholar
Reid, T., Baird, M., Reid, J. P.et al. (2008). Use of sibling pairs to determine the familial searching efficiency of forensic databases. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 2, 340–342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rose, N. (2006). The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, MA: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rosen, C. (2003). Liberty, privacy, and DNA databases. New Atlantis, 1, 37–52.Google Scholar
Simoncelli, T. (2006). Dangerous excursions: the case against expanding forensic DNA databases to innocent persons. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 34, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stahlberg, P., Miklau, G. and Levine, B. (2007). Threats to privacy in the forensic analysis of database systems. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data, pp. 91–102.Google Scholar
Taylor, P. (2008). When consent gets in the way. Nature, 456, 32–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W. and Schumann, E. (1987). Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law and Human Behaviour, 11, 167–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, W., Taroni, F. and Aitken, C. (2003). How the probability of a false positive affects the value of DNA evidence. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 48, 47–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Camp, N., Dierickx, K. and Leuven, K. (2007). The expansion of forensic DNA databases and police sampling powers in the post-9/11 era: ethical considerations on genetic privacy. Ethical Perspectives, 14, 237–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitall, H. (2008). The forensic use of DNA: scientific success story, ethical minefield. Biotechnology Journal, 3, 303–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. and Johnson, P. (2008). Genetic Policing: The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations. Cullompton, UK: Willan.Google Scholar
Willing, R. (2005). Suspects get snared by a relative's DNA. USA Today, 7 June, 1A.Google Scholar
New York v. Wesley, 533 N.Y.S.2d 643 (S. Ct. 1988).
S and Marper v. the United Kingdom (2008). A summary of the judgment is available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843937&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (accessed January 2009).

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×