The power and perils of DNA databases
For a long time now I've worried about the implications of gathering DNA data from large sections of the population, particularly when those individuals may have committed no crime (there has been a lot of coverage about children's DNA being retained even when their innocence was proven). My instinct is that this is a very dangerous path for us to go down without properly considering the implications, but I've never been able to come up with an example of why it's such a problem; for once the old lie of "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" seemed to ring true to me.
This week's Dispatches on Channel 4 made me realise what the problem really is (although in my opinion the programme portrayed civil liberties advocates as a bunch of maniacs with tin-foil hats).
All along I've wondered how the collection of DNA could be a civil liberties threat threat when police are investigating major crimes such as murder, rape, robbery. After all, once they've got a suspect in the frame, DNA will prove their involvement. If in theory someone wanted wanted to plant evidence then it would be simple to collect DNA from the suspect's home and plant it where needed. In this situation, the database looks like a positive move that poses little tangible threat.
But what happens when we combine two key - and in my opinion inevitable - technology developments:
- the collection of DNA data on the majority of the population;
- the availability of cheap 'off-the-shelf' DNA testing equipment that could be fitted to every police station and affordably used in the investigation of every crime?
This technology development is unlikely to have a significant impact on serious crime, particularly since the government states that it already has the DNA of the majority of hardened criminals. Where the real problems will arise is in the handling of minor offences. Based on a case given in the documentary, picture this scenario: your DNA was taken some years ago when the police accused you of some youthful vandalism, but no charge was pressed because the true culprit was identified after the arrest. At a later date, you are arrested for stealing mail because your DNA was found on a number of letters recovered from a skip. The police inform you that this is a minor offence in their opinion, and if you accept a caution they will not press matters. You refuse because you are innocent. Only later, after a lot of trouble, does it transpire that your DNA was on those letters because you had posted them yourself.
Now, if you had accepted the caution in order to gain release from police custody, the authorities would have given you a criminal record, and not investigated further, believing the case to be closed. This, I understand, is a common situation that is driven by 'policing by numbers' policies. Unfortunately many people do not understand the implications of a caution, believing it to be the equivalent of a friendly cuff round the ear from the village bobby when caught scrumping apples.
This scenario worries me a lot, and I now understand why I'm concerned about the collection of large numbers of DNA samples, particularly when there appears to be no clarity about how it might be used in the future.
And it is the unknown element of that future that is particularly concerning. Only recently have we realised the power of analysing family links through DNA; if DNA is found at a crime scene, we can link it to other family members in the database even if the suspect's DNA is not found in there. Moreover, with sufficient data in the database, we can confidently put a surname to the owner of that DNA even if we have no idea who he/she is. Once again, this has huge implications: because a family member is a known lawbreaker, children may very well find that 'the sins of their fathers' revisit them time and again during their lives.
I'm certainly not opposed to the principle of DNA databases, but until we've agreed a framework for how they are to be used I won't be volunteering to hand over my genetic code unless there's a damned good reason for it.
4:18:16 PM 
|
