Genetic forensics may assist in solving crimes, but the too-common assumption of the technique's infallibility makes it prone to implementation errors. In just a few months, California will expand its DNA database, by collecting samples from anyone arrested - but not necessarily convicted - of a felony. And it's already begun to use "familial matching." But before the Golden State moves ahead, its leaders should look to the challenges and controversies of other nations. 

In Australia, police must now review every crime seemingly solved using "genetic fingerprinting" - that's 7000 cases - after significant mistakes handling and testing samples in a recent case. And in the United Kingdom, which has the world's largest DNA database and has even considered expanding it to all residents, recent research by the Liberal Democratic party revealed that private companies have been allowed access for research purposes. Police officers, who have contributed their DNA voluntarily, were offered - and took - the opportunity to be excluded from the for-profit research. But most contributors neither have their consent nor had the opportunity to withdraw.

Previously on Biopolitical Times:

• US set to swell its criminal DNA database
• Child Abuse: UK Police Want Genes of 5-Year-Old "Future Criminals"
• First One in the Pool...
• Are DNA Databases Being Misused?

Comments

1. Comment by Jesse Reynolds, Aug 13th, 2008 10:58am

   My statement about the police choosing to withdraw from the research was based on the statement from the Liberal Democrats: "The police, many of whose officers have added themselves to the DNA database voluntarily, rejected a request for their DNA samples to be used in a research project." This implies that not all the police officers were in the database to being with, but collectively they chose to withdraw from the research.




2. Comment by Jason Bobe, Aug 11th, 2008 2:34pm

   Its difficult for me to understand a regime where individuals consent implicitly to have genetic data put into a database when accused of a crime.
   
   Very interesting that police officers were offered the opportunity to opt-out of research, while everyone else was not.
   
   Do you have a reference for the percent officers who opted-out of for-profit research? Was it 100%? Or percent of officers who voluntarily had their data added to the database to begin with?
   
   Thanks,
   Jason