Should the creation of a national DNA database
consisting of DNA from every citizen collected through a mandatory collection
program?
In the U.S. current law allows
DNA to be taken from sex offenders and those convicted or accused of a serious
crime. The information is the stored in
a national DNA database. The database
has been used both to prosecute crimes and to exonerate those wrongfully
convicted. With some exceptions, most
notably the military, the federal government may not collect DNA from ordinary
citizens. Several states, including
Utah, have statutorily allowed the collection of DNA from persons arrested and
subsequently charged with felonies. In
Utah, DNA samples of those arrested, but never charged or later exonerated,
must be destroyed. In contrast, Britain
more widely collects DNA from ordinary citizens, often in “DNA dragnets” where,
for example, DNA samples of all male citizens in a given community are taken to
aid in the investigation of a rape. The
samples are maintained in a national database.
How does it work exactly here in the U.S?
How do these DNA databases using CODIS work?
For example, in the case of a sexual assault where an evidence kit is collected from the victim, a DNA profile of the suspected perpetrator is developed from the swabs in the kit. The forensic unknown profile attributed to the suspected perpetrator is searched against their state database of convicted offender and arrestee profiles (contained within the Convicted Offender and Arrestee Indices, if that state is authorized to collect and database DNA samples from arrestees). If there is a candidate match in the Convicted Offender or Arrestee Index, the laboratory will go through procedures to confirm the match and, if confirmed, will obtain the identity of the suspected perpetrator. The DNA profile from the evidence is also searched against the state’s database of crime scene DNA profiles called the Forensic Index. If there is a candidate match in the Forensic Index, the laboratory goes through the confirmation procedures and, if confirmed, the match will have linked two or more crimes together. The law enforcement agencies involved in these cases are then able to share the information obtained on each of the cases and possibly develop additional leads. (FBI.gov)
Why not?
You may ask yourself why it is even a concern that the government stores a little bit of your DNA if you haven't committed a crime.
One argument focuses on the threat to privacy. "Many people are against the idea of extending the DNA database because of the potential threat it has to our privacy. While a DNA profile provides very little information about someone, their DNA sample contains information that can reveal their ethnicity or how susceptible they are to disease. The risk of data abuse is therefore potentially high."
Also when would we draw the line to who has access to this information? If the individual themselves had questions about their genetic profile could they request to view the information stored about them? Would we share this data with other all other countries or just those that have a similar system in place? Who would be regulating this data to make sure it doesn't get used for commercial purposes? "As genetic databases become increasingly common in other countries (over 60 countries are now operating one) the sharing of data between international police forces is likely to increase. This may increase the vulnerability of databases to abuse and hacking. It also introduces the challenge of differences in the rules for holding data which vary greatly between different countries. Although one standard may apply in the UK, it may not apply elsewhere."
What are the other possibilities of uses for the database?
Genetic testing: "Currently the database can already be used for some genetic research studies and to identify partial matches, where close genetic relatives can be identified from the DNA profiles of relatives on the database." What new doors could this open up? Being able to find long lost relatives, prove certain familial ties and even uncover your genetic risk to certain disease? What if insurance companies were able to access this data and increase rates for those susceptible to certain conditions?
There are many ethical questions that arise with this possible new law. For example, how long will this data be stored? Maybe past the death of the individual to help rule out DNA in the future? Will certain groups be exempt from this and for what reasons? What measures will be taken to ensure the safety of this information?
Personally I think that we don't have the means to protect such a large amount of personal information with any expectation of safety. The possible threats this country could face if this information got into the wrong hands outweighs the possible benefits to me. There is certainly valid debate from both sides but I just think it's too high of a security risk. This information could not only jeopardize privacy but also general safety. If someone got all the DNA profiles of a group of people they could target them in a number of ways (ex. biological warfare, discrimination) I do not think it should be mandatory for every citizen to give a DNA sample, that just gives too much control to the government.
Sources:
http://www.yourgenome.org/debates/is-it-ethical-to-have-a-national-dna-database
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/dna-databases/
https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet
I agree that there shouldn't be a mass database for everyone's DNA. There would be too much data to maintain securely. There would be some benefits for crime solving, and I think charged criminals should still be added to the database for potentially identifying them for repeated crimes. DNA databases collected should be only used by law enforcement, when they have sufficient reason to request the idntity. I do see some benefit in collecting DNA of more than criminals, since it would make crimes much easier to solve, however the security of that information would need to be sufficient. The use of the information would also need to be limited to forensics.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that all US citizens should have to give a DNA sample for a government database. I think that there is too much private information that is contained in any individual's DNA for this information to all be stored. In the case of criminals, I think that it it okay to have their DNA collected. It is a tempting proposition to have a mass database to combat crime. However, I think that there is just too much potential abuse of and harm from such a database.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree that there are too many risks involved with maintaining a national DNA database. Collecting and retaining the DNA of criminals is justified for obvious reasons, but the retention of the DNA of every single person in America is a bit much. There are literally tens of thousands of people born in the United States every day; therefore, the logistics of such an operation would quickly become a nightmare. With an operation as complex as this would be, something could go wrong so easily with its security, potentially compromising our privacy in very drastic ways.
ReplyDeleteI agree that DNA samples of the entire population should not be held in a national database. Even if severe regulations were imposed, I feel that the data could easily be abused. The current system the United States possesses seems to be the best solution at present. DNA of criminals should be retained, but those of ordinary citizens should not be stored. Even if we had access to our data and how it was being used, and if it was restricted to law enforcement, I still believe there would be a significant risk.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that the storing of the entire population's DNA in a government database poses too many security risks. A lot of our class so far has had to do with privacy regarding what we do but storing DNA in a database calls into question our rights to protect the privacy of who we are. I think the use of a database of criminals' DNA in the induction process of a criminal investigation makes sense and should be used. I'm more hesitant to support the use of dragnets in criminal investigations because of the murky laws surrounding how it is kept, how long it is kept, and what else it can be used for. I think Molly brings up a great point about the potential for abuse by third parties. If insurance companies can look at your DNA for predisposition to illnesses, they could deny coverage. I don't know if the potential to help in criminal investigation is enough of a reason to require DNA samples of the entire population, especially with the risks it poses.
ReplyDeleteAfter giving this problem some thought, I wouldn't be against a DNA database provided some technical challenges were solved.
ReplyDeleteFor instance, imagine there existed a DNA database holding samples from every person in the whole US, and a given DNA sample could be put into a comparison machine and the match found with 0.01% failure rate. The DNA database would return thousands of results, just because it is so huge!
Conversely, I could imagine the hugeness of this database being very beneficial to solving genetic diseases or identifying people with higher risk of certain diseases and warning them before they keel over dead.
Collecting the data could be a problem - it would be a bit rude to have doctors kicking down people's door, grabbing a vial of blood, and running out. But there are other times to collect the data in a more reasonable fashion. For instance, maybe it could be collected when people get a driver's license. That would prevent children's information from going in the database, as well as giving a well-defined time for the DNA sample to be collected. While not 100% of adults have drivers licenses, such a large portion do that a database collected on such a basis would give pretty excellent coverage.
There is certainly a risk of such a database being abused. As Molly and Alison mentioned, insurance companies could hike up rates or deny coverage to people. In countries with single-payer healthcare, this problem doesn't exist, and just as companies are not allowed to make employment decisions based on certain criteria, insurers could be barred from this discrimination.
With regard to the worry of ethnic discrimination based on a DNA database, the census already records enough information that this problem already exists. If nasty people want to do nasty things, they can certainly already find or make up reasons to so do.
I agree that a database of every citizen's DNA would invade individual's privacy. However, I can see benefits to such a database - quick identification of victims or perpetrators, finding diseases or conditions you may possibly get according to your genetic code, etc. I cannot decided whether or not I believe public safety outweighs the breech of privacy in this case, though. I think that the privacy concern is too high. DNA is linked to an individual and if that information was misused, it could greatly harm someone, either physically or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI agree especially with your position that right now we may not have the means to keep such a large number of DNA samples secure. The benefits are definitely plenty, possibly aiding criminal investigation on a very wide scale. However, it would also be incredibly hard to guarantee that you had a representative database of all potential criminals large enough that it would be truly effective. It would be a waste to collect mass amounts of DNA samples if, when a criminal investigation attempted to make use of this database, the criminal had evaded the collection. And here I can hear people saying "bad guys will do bad things no matter what the law is". I've always found those arguments a little.... juvenile, but I can still see the argument that could be made.
ReplyDelete