The New Scientist asks "Will DNA profiling fuel prejudice?" The article contemplates the power of the England and Wales National DNA Database (NDNAD):
"Launched on 10 April 1995, NDNAD holds DNA profiles from almost 3 million people...."From an investigator's perspective it's a powerful tool," says Paul Stickler of Sussex police. In a typical month, the database churns out hits for 15 murders, 45 rapes and sexual offences and 2500 car, theft and drug crimes. With DNA evidence, the average crime clear-up rate increases from 24 per cent to 43 per cent."...but notes the scope and increased growth of the profiling tools:
"In 2001, new legislation allowed the retention of profiles from suspects acquitted in court, and on 4 April last year police were given the authority to collect DNA from any person arrested on suspicion of a "recordable offence". These are people who may never have been charged, let alone convicted."
The trend for this type of vast personal data collection by authorities is growing in the US too. The contentious "Justice For All Act" was passed in October of 2004. California voters also passed Proposition 69 last fall. Voters were apparently convinced that the law would prevent criminals from cavorting about- crime would be thwarted. The law, like England's, allows DNA from anyone arrested to be stored in the database, whether or not they are subsequently charged with a crime.
These databases have proven privacy risks. People have been falsely connected to crimes they did not commit with DNA samples or data that is misread or mishandled. The data can be used for invasive racial and medical profiling, or be sold to private concerns who would misuse the data. The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California lists two such indiscretions:
"Lawrence Livermore Laboratory was sued for allegedly secretly testing African-American and female employees in the 1990’s for sickle-cell genes, pregnancy, and syphilis. Gene Trust, a company that collected DNA samples, attempted to sell its DNA databank during bankruptcy proceedings."
Since California is often viewed as progressive in protecting personal data with laws such as SB 1386, it's interesting that Californians saw no irony in passing the new law. California now joins Louisiana for having the two most permissive state DNA collection enterprises in the nation, followed by Virgina and Texas. Although the ACLU susequently challenged the law in December 2004, it's unclear how far the suit will go.
It is easy to be wowed by volumes of raw data, especially if it can be mined for potential solutions to a problem. However we can place undue weight on the sequence data simply because it is there and relatively easy to collect. Relying on DNA data in general can be problematic because physiology and behavior are not predicted by sequence data. There are far too many unknowns about the contribution of DNA markers relative to behavioral risk to rely on the data for policing purposes, especially in lieu of more thorough, creative, albeit time consuming detective work. Furthermore turning to a DNA data bank for a pool of potential suspects challenges the notion of justice because it flys in the face of assumed innocence.
Gaping security breaches such as at airports and borders beg for attention. Yet in the face of vague omnipresent threats and a national obsession with security we assuage our fear by giving "authorities" library records and DNA data. Do such measures lull us into feeling safe -- like chickens with bags over their heads before the roasting? We are overly lenient with vital personnal data when we should be alarmed with this tack and such invasive measures. Looking for clues, our overseers of justice grope through our most private data; perhaps it's time we reconsider our naive assumption of shared goals and challenge the use of such data.
