DNA stores
genetic information and is unique to each person, with the exception of
identical twins. It is, some might argue, some of the most personal
information, both because it is so unique and it carries so much information. A
DNA database is a massive collection of this personal information and is used
in criminal investigations, medical research, missing persons cases, and more.
Current laws on DNA Databases
The types
of offenders required to submit DNA samples to a database varies by state, as
well as nationally. Utah’s database, established in 1994 by Utah State Code 53-10-403, has evolved from only including murder and sexual assault to including
Felony 1, 2, 3, and Class A misdemeanor convictions, any felony booking, and
any convection that includes the offender being added to the sex offender
registry. Laws also govern the use of these
databases. The majority of states allow databases to be used for any criminal
investigation, but Washington and North Carolina have restricted use of their
databases, possibly in an effort to decrease potential for misuse.
At the
national level, the National DNA Index System (NDIS) was established by the DNA
Identification Act of 1994. The act created the database and regulates its use,
access, and security. The Supreme Court recently upheld the inclusion of arrestees
in DNA databases in Maryland vs. King, stating that it was a reasonable search
under the fourth amendment.
Many other
countries have enacted a national DNA database, with various levels of
inclusion. For example, Great Britan, with the world’s largest database includes far more people than criminals. A 2012 law did serve to decrease the
amount of profiles of innocent people in order to better balance the privacy of individuals with the needs of law
enforcement.
DNA databases currently
DNA
databases are maintained by many agencies, both law enforcement and not. In the
US, the largest database in CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), which connects local, state, and national DNA databases, including NDIS. CODIS
is not limited to those convicted of crimes – it also includes people who are
arrested, missing persons, and unidentified persons. Additional DNA databases
exist that are not associated with law enforcement, run by the branches of the
military, genealogical organizations, and medical organizations.
CODIS
contains DNA profiles that consist of one of both alleles on 13 genetic loci.
Only profiles with 10 loci are included in the database, meaning degraded or
incomplete profiles are not included. Criminal profiles are removed after a
court document is issued stating that a conviction has been overturned, charges
have been dismissed, or that person was acquitted. Database confidentiality is
regulated by federal law (DNA Identification Act of 1994) and breaking this is punishable
by a fine of up to $250,000. Data is secured by using a physically restricted
terminals and protected, limited access servers.
Genetic Markers and Discrimination
While only
13 alleles are currently stored in CODIS, with advances in large data storage,
as well as the potential benefits of more stringent matches (including
epigenetic markers to differentiate twins), there is the potential for entire genomes to be stored and analyzed. Some
genetic markers that have been identified include schizophrenia, bipolardisorder,
and the so called “warrior gene”. All three of these genes carry
the potential for discrimination – schizophrenia and bipolar disorder because
they are falsely associated with violence and the “warrior gene” because it is
linked with aggression. While discrimination on the basis of genetics is
illegal in the context of hiring and health insurance, there is no such law preventing this discrimination in a legal context. A
genetic marker indicates a possible predisposition, not a causation or even 100%
correlation, giving an unfounded basis for profiling, constituting
discrimination based on an uncontrolled trait.
Genetic discrimination would need to be accounted for when creating a
database. One method would be legislating non-discrimination acts. Another
would be prohibiting the use of genetic screening on samples or the storage of
and access to entire genetic profiles by law enforcement.
Logistics
The
logistics of such a program create a variety of problems. The cost of such a
program would be huge, and would be an ongoing expense. Who would pay for this?
And when would samples be collected? At birth? Not everyone is born in a
hospital and parental permission would be needed for testing of the minors. There
are also the problems of secure storage, both in the form of digital profiles
and the actual samples. The argument could be made for retaining samples in
case they need to be retested. However this leads to the need for physical security,
increasing costs significantly. Data security, in the form of access to the
data and storage of the profiles is also a problem, as such personally
identifying information would need to be stored with the highest level of
security.
My Thoughts
There are
both benefits and drawbacks to the formation of a DNA database that includes all
citizens. The main benefit that I can see is helping solve current and past
crimes. Another is identification of remains. One of the concerns that sticks
out to me is the potential for genetic discrimination and profiling. People
can’t help having a genetic marker for an illness or trait, and shouldn’t be
punished for having such a trait. Another is access to these profiles. Such a
massive amount of personally identifying information would need stringent
safeguards to prevent abuse and misuse.
Overall, I
believe that the costs of such a program, from both a privacy and a logistics
stand point out weigh the potential benefits. The potential for abuse and data
compromise are greater than the potential of benefits in criminal
investigations, therefore making a universal DNA database not sound public
policy.
A national DNA database does not seem like a good idea to me. It could be useful in solving crimes and identifying missing people/remains of people, but I think the potential for misuse is extremely high. Like you said, people could start profiling people based off genetic predispositions. I watched this documentary about serial killers (Don't mind me, I'm not super creepy or anything) and scientists are trying to find and define "the killer gene". As of right now, they haven't exactly pinpointed what it is, but as research progresses they will likely discover one in the future. If we had a national database where they took everyone's DNA at birth and a child happened to have this gene that predisposes them to violence and killing, what are you going to do in that situation, kill the kid?
ReplyDeleteI understand the need for a criminal database and the laws regarding the regulation of what goes in those databases that Steffi mentioned seem appropriate to me. However, I think a national database containing the DNA of all citizens is unreasonable. I agree largely with Steffi-- the benefits of identifying remains or missing persons are certainly significant but the potential for abuse is high. What if someone hacked the system and suddenly had access to the genomes of everyone and what illnesses they were predisposed to? To bring up the old cliche, it seems like 1984-type government surveillance to me. Anne makes a good point too-- what if we start to eliminate those with undesirable traits? (Okay, that's dramatic and definitely a worst case scenario but what if?) DNA is incredibly personal, it makes up the very fiber of who we are, and having that catalogued for every individual is invasive and dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiments expressed above by Anne and Tara - I see the benefits of such a system, but to me the cost outweighs the benefits. We have talked briefly in class about how such a database has been suggested in India, the Human DNA Profiling Bill. A country like India, which has a population of 1.2 billion, compared to the US' 319 million, in my opinion has more of a case for such a system. Not that I trust the Indian system more to protect against abuse or hacks, but in their country, I imagine it's much more difficult to keep track of their citizens for purposes of things like welfare, as well as crime. But, in a country where it is "more appropriate" (by my terms), they are still having trouble putting legislation into motion.
ReplyDeleteI also have to agree with Steffi's points about the logistics of such a program. Security, and cost are two huge hurdles that would need to be handled. Although, I guess in a US government that passes a budget like the Omnibus bill, cost could be a bit of a footnote. Additionally, like we have seen with data brokers and the information they acquire that there is potential for economic and other forms of discrimination. I agree with the potential for genetic discrimination/profiling that could arise from DNA profiling.
I must continue the above sentiment, and argue against a national database. Despite the potential for crime solving, I think the potential benefits of the database are overblown. I think a better avenue would be to better investigation standards. The coercive potential of a DNA database is enough reason for me to oppose it. It is simply too much information for a government to have and control. Steffi's argued potential for abuse is a very real threat, and should be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think that having a comprehensive DNA database of all US citizens is a bad idea, I feel compelled to point out that it would be very possible to store the data in such a way that law enforcement could check a sample against the database, but without any genetic information being stored (I believe Shane was talking about this earlier in the year, when we were talking about facial recognition). However, even if the data were to be stored in this manner, I would still be opposed to the idea of a database, for much the same reasons that I would be opposed to a comprehensive fingerprint database. Even if the only thing that can be extrapolated from the database is the link between a person’s DNA to their identity, I think that having this information for every single person in the US is too much power for law enforcement to have. I think that restricting database entries to people who have been convicted of a crime is the best solution.
ReplyDeleteThe other problem with DNA is checking a hunch vs trolling for matches. The error probability on a DNA match is often on the order of 1 in a million. If you are testing a specific subject, a match is a VERY strong indication that they did commit the crime. If you have a database of one million people and you use it to try to find your perpetrator, then there is a good chance (63%) that someone will come up a match who is not the source of the sample. If you apply 300 million the probability gets much greater, (we expect that about 300 individuals will come up each time and will be unrelated to the crime). Even if you account for the fact that most of these people will be unrelated to the crime (and that the pool of people that might be related to the crime is much less than a million) there is still a good chance that the evidence will be used to convince a jury that doesn't understand probability well to convict an innocent.
DeleteI suppose this is the risk of such national database. I think that it could be of significant value, but it would also be incredibly dangerous. I like your comment about storing hashes of the DNA sequence (the technical term for storing the data in such a way as to allow you to check if a particular sequence is on file without allowing you to read all the sequences on file).
All and all I'm torn. I think in a perfect world, such a database would be a great boon to public health and law enforcement, but in reality it would probably be abused.
The crime fighting befits to a nation wide data base are undeniable. However I think that it would be costly, intrusive, and unenforceable. Fortunately I think that they is a compromise here. What if we broadened the scope of crimes in which we took DNA from the offenders. The majority of crimes are committed by repeat offenders, though very few of them start their criminal careers as super villains. If we stored the DNA of the punk kid that robbed a Gas Mark we would have it later when that same kid committed murder. This is a less expensive, less invasive, and more easily enforceable solution that will garner almost all the same benefits of a nation wide data base.
ReplyDeleteWhile I fully support the use of DNA evidence in criminal investigation, the idea of having a national DNA database is scary. The vast amount of information that is stored in these databases has a huge privacy implications and the potential for abuse is frightening. Your DNA can show what type of diseases you are dispositioned for and perhaps that data one day might be used to discriminate against you such as increasing insurance rates.
ReplyDeleteMy biggest concern for a collection of DNA for all citizens is the one that was voiced by Steffi regarding the potential for discrimination and profiling. I am also concerned about the security of this information. DNA is probably the most individualized and personal information that can be collected from a human, so I think that if this is implemented, it must be done with great care. I see many benefits to the collection of DNA, many of which have been voiced. I am not sure that these benefits warrant creating a universal database of every citizen.
ReplyDelete