Should Police Use DNA to Investigate a Suspect’s Family Members?
By Nanibaa’ A. Garrison, Rori V. Rohlfs, and Stephanie M. Fullerton, <i>Biopolitical Times</i> guest contributors
| 06. 11. 2013
A shorter version of this was published in Nature Reviews Genetics [abstract].
In July 2010, California police used a new forensic technique called familial searching to capture the “Grim Sleeper,” a serial killer who had evaded them for a quarter century. With DNA obtained from a discarded pizza crust, investigators found in the state’s offender database not the profile of the killer himself but instead, through a partial genetic match, that of his son. Based on the identification of a close genetic relative, a principal suspect was identified (1).
Forensic familial searching is practiced in some US jurisdictions and a number of other countries, and its use is increasing. Not surprisingly, this has raised significant scientific and social concerns. Careful consideration of these issues is especially urgent now, in light of the recent Supreme Court decision allowing the collection of DNA from arrestees prior to conviction (2,3).
How does familial searching work? In most forensic cases, investigators analyze DNA from a crime scene at 13 genetic markers determined by the federally managed Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) (4)...
Related Articles
By George Janes, BioNews | 01.12.2026
A heart attack patient has become the first person to be treated in a clinical trial of an experimental gene therapy, which aims to strengthen blood vessels after coronary bypass surgery.
Coronary artery bypass surgery is performed to treat...
By Staff, ScienceDaily | 01.05.2026
Scientists at UNSW Sydney have developed a new form of CRISPR technology that could make gene therapy safer while also resolving a decades-long debate about how genes are switched off. The research shows that small chemical markers attached to DNA
...
Following a long-standing CGS tradition, we present a selection of our favorite Biopolitical Times posts of the past year.
In 2025, we published up to four posts every month, written by 12 authors (staff, consultants and allies), some in collaboration and one simply credited to CGS.
These titles are presented in chronological order, except for three In Memoriam notices, which follow. Many more posts that are worth your time can be found in the archive. Scroll down and “VIEW...
By Jonathan Matthews, GMWatch | 12.11.2025
In our first article in this series, we investigated the dark PR tactics that have accompanied Colossal Bioscience’s de-extinction disinformation campaign, in which transgenic cloned grey wolves have been showcased to the world as resurrected dire wolves – a...
