Are DNA Databases Being Misused?
Posted by Osagie K. Obasogie November 10, 2006
Biopolitical Times
Sir Alec Jeffreys, father of modern DNA fingerprinting, recently chastised the UK police for using his work to "creep" upon innocent people's freedoms. Jeffreys told BBC News that the DNA databases he helped popularize were intended to collect the genetic information of those convicted of crimes, not to indefinitely store the DNA of every person that comes into contact with the police. And certainly not those who are never charged with a crime.
Jeffreys is right to highlight how this tramples traditional civil liberties. While some may argue that innocent people have nothing to worry about, any basic notion of privacy recognizes the right to keep certain personal information out of government hands. Genetic privacy is no different. But Jeffreys is also right to point out how this practice takes racial justice back to the stone age. Jeffreys notes how biased policing practices in poor communities and communities of color has led to the overinclusion of DNA samples from these groups, whereby the 3.6 million profiles in the UK's database are "skewed socioeconomically and ethically." In Jeffreys' view, "that is discriminatory." Indeed.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a London based independent research body, has said that the UK's ability to seize DNA from virtually all arrestees is "unrivaled internationally." That may not be the case for much longer. Californians passed Proposition 69 in 2004, which, starting in 2009, allows the police to similarly collect and store the DNA of any adult arrested or charged with a felony. There's little question that poor Californians of color will bear the brunt of this law, much like their UK counterparts.
Jeffreys is right to highlight how this tramples traditional civil liberties. While some may argue that innocent people have nothing to worry about, any basic notion of privacy recognizes the right to keep certain personal information out of government hands. Genetic privacy is no different. But Jeffreys is also right to point out how this practice takes racial justice back to the stone age. Jeffreys notes how biased policing practices in poor communities and communities of color has led to the overinclusion of DNA samples from these groups, whereby the 3.6 million profiles in the UK's database are "skewed socioeconomically and ethically." In Jeffreys' view, "that is discriminatory." Indeed.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics, a London based independent research body, has said that the UK's ability to seize DNA from virtually all arrestees is "unrivaled internationally." That may not be the case for much longer. Californians passed Proposition 69 in 2004, which, starting in 2009, allows the police to similarly collect and store the DNA of any adult arrested or charged with a felony. There's little question that poor Californians of color will bear the brunt of this law, much like their UK counterparts.