Breadcrumbs Section. Click here to navigate to respective pages.
Chapter
Chapter
which a social group or individual thinks is wrong. So the first port of call will be the courts, where we should be able to expect an independent judiciary. However, it is also true that sometimes actions and decisions are taken which, although in themselves not contentious, accumulate along with other legislation to create a highly questionable situation. Note here that the situation becomes questionable: an interpretation of the rules becomes possible which some would simply not agree with. For example, progressive attitudes towards free speech has resulted in the situation being taken advantage of by extreme groups for political ends. There are a number of very specific points which can be made about the use of DNA by society and more especially the construction and use of DNA databases. It is unlikely that anybody would really object to construction of anonymous databases so that we can produce a precise and reliable figure for the probability of finding a DNA profile in the general population by chance alone. What many people do have objections to is the construction of databases of named individuals. Strangely, it would seem that the country that has always been in the van of development of DNA technology is developing a rather poorer reputation for riding roughshod over the rights of its population, the UK. The problems and objections with databases of named individuals start with the practitioners and political will by successive governments. Luckily, there is an outspoken reaction to the UK government’s belief that all uses of DNA are good, but we should be aware that this is not so. Current thinking is that in the future it will be possible to determine facial shape, such as nose type and eye colour, with a simple test. This is put forward as a distinct possibility by the Forensic Science Service, with little regard to the extreme complexity of both the genetics and the environmental input into such things, not to mention plastic surgery. While it was always the belief that rapid turnaround of DNA results would be a good thing, this is only if the techniques are highly controlled. The idea that a hand held machine, as has been suggested, could be taken to a scene of crime and the DNA analysed in situ should fill any self-respecting scientist with horror. It has already been stated that there is a 40% chance of a stain found at a crime scene being linked to a name on the database of named individuals. As databases become larger as well as the number of individuals putting data on the database, so the likelihood of error increases; remember that error in this sense is quite likely to ruin a life. Names get onto databases for perfectly innocent reasons. Two of these are the husband or partner of a rape victim and, which is even more demeaning, the DNA profile of the victim herself. This was admitted in the House of Lords. So why is the British public so lacking in interest or apparently not in the least bit bothered by this staggering lack of feeling for the innocent? There is no mechanism for the removal of a DNA sample from the database after consent has been given. It is of interest here that both the police, forensic scientists and politicians are extremely reluctant to give a sample which can be held on the named database. Why is this? Fear? Fear of what may be done with such intimate information. This includes medical analysis and data which they have no right to access. It would be
DOI link for which a social group or individual thinks is wrong. So the first port of call will be the courts, where we should be able to expect an independent judiciary. However, it is also true that sometimes actions and decisions are taken which, although in themselves not contentious, accumulate along with other legislation to create a highly questionable situation. Note here that the situation becomes questionable: an interpretation of the rules becomes possible which some would simply not agree with. For example, progressive attitudes towards free speech has resulted in the situation being taken advantage of by extreme groups for political ends. There are a number of very specific points which can be made about the use of DNA by society and more especially the construction and use of DNA databases. It is unlikely that anybody would really object to construction of anonymous databases so that we can produce a precise and reliable figure for the probability of finding a DNA profile in the general population by chance alone. What many people do have objections to is the construction of databases of named individuals. Strangely, it would seem that the country that has always been in the van of development of DNA technology is developing a rather poorer reputation for riding roughshod over the rights of its population, the UK. The problems and objections with databases of named individuals start with the practitioners and political will by successive governments. Luckily, there is an outspoken reaction to the UK government’s belief that all uses of DNA are good, but we should be aware that this is not so. Current thinking is that in the future it will be possible to determine facial shape, such as nose type and eye colour, with a simple test. This is put forward as a distinct possibility by the Forensic Science Service, with little regard to the extreme complexity of both the genetics and the environmental input into such things, not to mention plastic surgery. While it was always the belief that rapid turnaround of DNA results would be a good thing, this is only if the techniques are highly controlled. The idea that a hand held machine, as has been suggested, could be taken to a scene of crime and the DNA analysed in situ should fill any self-respecting scientist with horror. It has already been stated that there is a 40% chance of a stain found at a crime scene being linked to a name on the database of named individuals. As databases become larger as well as the number of individuals putting data on the database, so the likelihood of error increases; remember that error in this sense is quite likely to ruin a life. Names get onto databases for perfectly innocent reasons. Two of these are the husband or partner of a rape victim and, which is even more demeaning, the DNA profile of the victim herself. This was admitted in the House of Lords. So why is the British public so lacking in interest or apparently not in the least bit bothered by this staggering lack of feeling for the innocent? There is no mechanism for the removal of a DNA sample from the database after consent has been given. It is of interest here that both the police, forensic scientists and politicians are extremely reluctant to give a sample which can be held on the named database. Why is this? Fear? Fear of what may be done with such intimate information. This includes medical analysis and data which they have no right to access. It would be
which a social group or individual thinks is wrong. So the first port of call will be the courts, where we should be able to expect an independent judiciary. However, it is also true that sometimes actions and decisions are taken which, although in themselves not contentious, accumulate along with other legislation to create a highly questionable situation. Note here that the situation becomes questionable: an interpretation of the rules becomes possible which some would simply not agree with. For example, progressive attitudes towards free speech has resulted in the situation being taken advantage of by extreme groups for political ends. There are a number of very specific points which can be made about the use of DNA by society and more especially the construction and use of DNA databases. It is unlikely that anybody would really object to construction of anonymous databases so that we can produce a precise and reliable figure for the probability of finding a DNA profile in the general population by chance alone. What many people do have objections to is the construction of databases of named individuals. Strangely, it would seem that the country that has always been in the van of development of DNA technology is developing a rather poorer reputation for riding roughshod over the rights of its population, the UK. The problems and objections with databases of named individuals start with the practitioners and political will by successive governments. Luckily, there is an outspoken reaction to the UK government’s belief that all uses of DNA are good, but we should be aware that this is not so. Current thinking is that in the future it will be possible to determine facial shape, such as nose type and eye colour, with a simple test. This is put forward as a distinct possibility by the Forensic Science Service, with little regard to the extreme complexity of both the genetics and the environmental input into such things, not to mention plastic surgery. While it was always the belief that rapid turnaround of DNA results would be a good thing, this is only if the techniques are highly controlled. The idea that a hand held machine, as has been suggested, could be taken to a scene of crime and the DNA analysed in situ should fill any self-respecting scientist with horror. It has already been stated that there is a 40% chance of a stain found at a crime scene being linked to a name on the database of named individuals. As databases become larger as well as the number of individuals putting data on the database, so the likelihood of error increases; remember that error in this sense is quite likely to ruin a life. Names get onto databases for perfectly innocent reasons. Two of these are the husband or partner of a rape victim and, which is even more demeaning, the DNA profile of the victim herself. This was admitted in the House of Lords. So why is the British public so lacking in interest or apparently not in the least bit bothered by this staggering lack of feeling for the innocent? There is no mechanism for the removal of a DNA sample from the database after consent has been given. It is of interest here that both the police, forensic scientists and politicians are extremely reluctant to give a sample which can be held on the named database. Why is this? Fear? Fear of what may be done with such intimate information. This includes medical analysis and data which they have no right to access. It would be
ABSTRACT