In our rapidly evolving world, technology plays an increasingly significant and, in many ways, intrusive role in our lives. The impact of technology can be observed in every industry in the business world and almost every facet of our daily routines. From smart devices in our homes that help us keep track of food stock in the refrigerator to commercial drones used to deliver goods to customers, our lives have become progressively more comfortable and efficient due to the evolving technology. While the influence of technology has undoubtedly helped our society advance more quickly, adverse consequences must be considered so that we may continue on a positive growth trajectory. In almost no other area of technology could this statement be more relevant than with the emerging technologies of DNA databases. Surprisingly, the conversation is virtually nonexistent regarding implications for privacy concerns, misinterpreted information, and personal health decisions.
A DNA database is a compiled directory that catalogs genetic profiles for various purposes, including criminology, genealogy, and disease identification. More broadly stated, a DNA database is an example of bioinformatics, a field that blends sourced biological information with data science technologies, including data storage, allocation, and evaluation. The application of DNA databases has aided in developing innovative medicines, found connections between gene sequences, and helped design treatments for patients based on their unique DNA structures (Lesk, “Bioinformatics”).
DNA data banks can be public institutions, including GenBank, or private entities, such as 23 and Me. However, the most extensive databases in the world are national data banks that store genetic information sourced from convicted criminals and victims and bystanders associated with crimes in some countries and circumstances. For instance, the United Kingdom had 1,766,000 DNA profiles obtained from innocent adults and children, compiled in the national data bank. The UK Protection and Freedoms Bill passed in 2012 required the removal of these DNA profiles alongside 1,672,000 fingerprint records from the system and almost eight million DNA samples that contained personal biological material (Is it ethical to have a national DNA database?).
The technology of DNA databases has continued to take an increasingly significant role in our society, which in many ways, is undoubtedly for the better. As the data banks expand their information base, the results are interpreted more efficiently and rapidly. It is generally-held common knowledge that criminologists use DNA to convict defendants. The same approach has also been consistently used in the opposite sense to free those wrongly convicted.
The Innocence Project is one such organization. Since 1993, the Innocence Project has performed extensive evaluations of instances where the convicted may have been wrongly accused. The organization reviews defendants’ criminal cases to see if biological evidence left behind by the perpetrator was collected from the crime scene and determines if the evidence could undergo new forms of DNA testing. In the last twenty-seven years of the organization’s history, three hundred and eighty-three prisoners have been exonerated through DNA testing (DNA’s Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent).
While DNA evidence can and does help to pardon those wrongfully convicted, there are severe problems with DNA profile analysis that has led to just the opposite: putting innocent people behind bars. In a 2011 study, scientists Dror and Hampikian asked seventeen North American DNA examiners to analyze data sampled from an adjudicated criminal case. The results produced by the various scientists were inconsistent, leading the scientists to conclude that, in the practical sense, the knowledge that the evidence provided from a completed criminal case likely influenced the findings. Additionally, the scientists disagreed with the pre-trial laboratory’s conclusions when they did not receive information that the evidence sample under analysis was from an exonerated criminal case (Dror & Hampikian, “Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation”).
The results of the Dror and Hampikian study are alarming and certainly concerning. Considering the generally-held belief that science is objective, such systematic studies should focus on subjectivity in DNA databases and emerging technologies to properly assess what levels of bias impact analytical results. According to the 2011 study, “only a few published studies experimentally [address] the potential for contextual bias (Dror & Hampikian),” which seems odd knowing the consistent levels of subjective error.
The study by Dror and Hampikian is not the only study to highlight the alarming subjectivity of DNA profile interpretation within criminology. In a 2016 article, The Atlantic put forth equally troubling information surrounding DNA databases by providing a specific example where such subjectivity led to a conviction for an innocent man. William Thompson, an attorney and criminology professor at the University of California, Irvine, provided an example of when this happened. After a whistleblower from the Houston Police crime laboratory alerted a local news station, dozens of DNA profiles were sent off for independent examination. The consensus from the independent review of the data indicated that there was, by Thompson’s estimation, “gross incompetence…and repeated gross incompetence” at the crime laboratory and that after reading the results, “You have to wonder if [the techs] could really be that stupid (Shaer, “The False Promise of DNA Testing”).”
In 2002, the mother of a convicted rapist, Josiah Sutton, contacted Thompson after seeing the local news segment about the misinterpreted DNA profile data. The professor reviewed the case and sent the DNA profiles from the rape investigation and Sutton off to yet another independent laboratory for verification. The results indicated that the crime scene biological samples were not a match for Sutton. The conclusion ran contrary to the previous findings by analyst Christy Kim. She “concluded that [the convicted rapist’s DNA was “consistent” with the mixture from the vaginal swab (Shaer)” during her testing at the Houston crime laboratory. Thanks to the investigative work of a Houston news station, a UC Irvine professor, and a team who reexamined the evidence, Sutton was released from prison in the spring of 2003. Kim was fired but later reinstated after her attorney argued that mismanagement was the cause of her mistakes, not her analysis (Shaer).
Peter Neufeld, the Co-Founder and Co-Director of the Innocence Project, said that the end goal for the criminal justice system is that we “develop the most scientifically rigorous, reliable methods so we can all get to the truth and victims can be more satisfied, defendants can be more satisfied, and the public can rest assured that we reached the right result (DNA’s Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent).”
But how can we be sure that our justice system arrives at such a “right result” Neufeld speaks of when so few studies measure the reliability of conclusive findings by scientists, especially when this evidence makes or breaks a case for the defendant? It would appear that there is an assumption that needs to be rooted out by the community — a less-than argumentative position needs to be taken by scientists so that the development of proper conclusions can arise. Not providing “context,” as Dror and Hampikian said was an influencing factor, is a practical place to start. Perhaps doing so would allow scientists to remove as much bias as possible to arrive at more objective DNA mixture interpretation results.
Potential ethical issues surrounding DNA data banks and the information they contain extend beyond the borders of Western societies. In 2020, the Indian newspaper The Hindu reported that the DNA Technology Regulation Bill was referred to a standing committee in the Indian parliament for further investigation. The Bill “seeks to control the use and application of [DNA] technology for establishing the identity of certain categories of persons, including offenders, victims, suspects, and undertrials (“DNA Technology Regulation Bill referred to parliamentary standing committee.”),” and allows for the institution of regional and national DNA databases. After the Bill passed in July 2020, concerns arose surrounding some of the document’s language, including requirements allowing for “sensitive information of an individual such as pedigree, skin colour, behaviour, illness, health status, and susceptibility to diseases (Nair, “DNA Bill can be misused for caste-based profiling, says panel draft report”). This information could be sourced from the DNA profiles in the database, which could very well “be misused to specifically target individuals and their families with their own genetic data. (Nair),” according to the oversight committee’s report.
The Bill requires the convicted to permit such information to be uploaded to the database. However, the law would allow “a magistrate [to] easily override consent, thereby in effect, making consent perfunctory.” The Hindu reported that the Bill lacks guidance for conditions under which a “magistrate can override consent,” which is the fundamental problem with the Bill (Nair). Essentially, consent by a convicted criminal could be arbitrarily overridden by a magistrate with subjective, rather than objective, motivations.
The example in India is unquestionably alarming, considering the previously highlighted instance of the national database in the United Kingdom that compiled DNA profiles, biological samples, and fingerprint information. Such power to biologically track, surveil, and categorize private citizens with their genetic information, especially in the hands of an increasingly nationalistic government (as is the case in India), is historically unprecedented and problematic.
As the cliché says, history repeats itself. In the last century, sinister efforts to eradicate and control undesirable elements of societies emerged, including several severe genocides and the practice of eugenics. DNA data banks would make such evil work even more efficient. The unchecked technology would allow an extremist government to carry out its desired activities more rapidly and dangerously. When we examine such a treacherous possibility in the described context, a question comes to mind: why are we not discussing this technology more often as individual societies and the implication of the technology on the global scale?
While this article seeks to highlight the overlooked and under-evaluated problems with DNA databases, the author also seeks to highlight the successes of proper application. Joseph James DeAngelo, also known as the Golden State Killer, was responsible for at least twelve murders and fifty rapes between 1974 and 1986. He evaded justice for over three decades until detectives matched a discarded biological sample from his residence with evidence in the ongoing investigations (Scutti, “What the Golden State Killer case means for your genetic privacy”). While DNA evidence is regularly used to bring criminals to justice, the method used by investigators in the Golden State Killer case was different and innovative for bringing an evading criminal to justice.
GEDmatch, an open-source genetic data bank, was used to match DNA profiles from crime scenes in the Golden State Killer cases under investigation. After a familial profile was created in the database, investigators followed the family tree to locate potential suspects within the tree. The method only took four months; investigators were able to trace DeAngelo based on one of his relatives (Scutti).
The United States, like much of the world, has done little to regulate this technology. In 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided that DNA information is not property in Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics Inc. Despite the semblance of personal ownership eliminated by SCOTUS in the case, other protections exist, including the Genetic Information and Non-Discrimination Act of 2008. The law explicitly prohibits health insurance companies from using genetic information to make coverage and policy decisions, although there are exceptions for smaller companies and other forms, including life insurance. Commerical testing companies, however, are virtually unregulated (Scutti).
There are few other technologies as unregulated and unspoken about as DNA databases, which seems to be a problem with increasing severity. The information stored in these databases will allow governments, corporations, and even private citizens to gain an inside look into an individual’s biological makeup. Perhaps the technology is evolving so rapidly that the populace cannot understand the full ramifications of their genetic information being public. Their genetic data could aid nefarious entities in attempts to oppress or even eliminate population segments. Beyond the hypothetical sense, severe negligence issues borne of subjective testing practices embedded within the DNA analysis systems are currently in place, which has led to false convictions and damaged lives. A serious conversation needs to take place within our societies so that we can take the necessary precautions and refine these techniques while preserving individual liberties and creating a more objective science within the field of DNA databases.
Works Cited
DNA’s Revolutionary Role in Freeing the Innocent, Innocence Project, 18 April 2018, www.innocenceproject.org/dna-revolutionary-role-freedom/.
“DNA Technology Regulation Bill referred to parliamentary standing committee.” The Hindu, 19 October 2019, www.thehindu.com/news/national/dna-technology-regulation-bill-referred-to-parliamentary-standing-committee/article29742461.ece.
Dror IE, Hampikian G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011;51(4):204–208. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004
Is it ethical to have a national DNA database?, Wellcome Genome Campus, 1 January 2015, www.yourgenome.org/debates/is-it-ethical-to-have-a-national-dna-database.
HYPERLINK “http://www.calvin.edu/library/knightcite/index.php"Lesk, Arthur. “Bioinformatics.” Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/science/bioinformatics.
Nair, Sobhana K. “DNA Bill can be misused for caste-based profiling, says panel draft report.” The Hindu, 24 August 2020, www.thehindu.com/news/national/dna-bill-can-be-misused-for-caste-based-profiling-says-panel-draft-report/article32429334.ece.
Scutti, Susan. “What the Golden State Killer case means for your genetic privacy.” CNN, 1 May 2018, www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/health/golden-state-killer-genetic-privacy/index.html.
Shaer, Matthew. “The False Promise of DNA Testing.” The Atlantic, June 2016, www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/a-reasonable-doubt/480747/.
