The forensic use of DNA involves the public in a number of roles. The rapid adoption of DNA identification as a part of the legal system and continuing developments have afforded little opportunity to thoroughly interrogate public understandings of issues. This article reports on a survey that explores public understanding of the forensic use of DNA: sources of knowledge, understandings of processes, and attitudes toward DNA use. Overall, knowledge about DNA use was limited, particularly around means of taking samples and (...) storage, and two thirds stated that they did not have enough information about DNA use. While the majority agreed that such use of DNA is “a great step forward,” they “would be happy to give a DNA sample if requested,” and considered DNA evidence to be important, concern was indicated about some areas, such as possible mistakes. This was particularly the case for indigenous peoples. (shrink)

Since its origins in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling has become the most powerful tool for identification in contemporary society. Practitioners have deployed it to determine parentage, verify claims to identity in various civil contexts, identify bodies in wars and mass disasters, and infer the identity of individuals who have left biological traces at crime scenes. Thus DNA profiling can be used to implicate or exonerate individuals from participation in particular social relations and activities; this affords it a growing importance in (...) major social institutions such as the family, the criminal justice system, immigration services, and health services. There are key state, security, civil liberty, personal, and commercial considerations surrounding the reliability and social implications of DNA profiling in establishing the identities of “family members,” “claimants,” “customers,” “suspects,” and “citizens.”Given that DNA profiling is increasingly influential in forensic inquiries, the recently-developed practice in the UK of “familial searching” of DNA databases has the potential to become a significant aspect of investigations. (shrink)

Genetic information is becoming increasingly used in modern life, extending beyond medicine to familial history, forensics and more. Following this expansion of use, the effect of genetic information on people’s identity and ultimately people’s quality of life is being explored in a host of different disciplines. While a multidisciplinary approach is commendable and necessary, there is the potential for the multidisciplinarity to produce conceptual misconnection. That is, while experts in one field may understand their use of a term like ‘gene’, (...) ‘identity’ or ‘information’ for experts in another field, the same term may link to a distinctly different concept. These conceptual misconnections not only increase inefficiency in complex organisational practices, but can also have important ethical, legal and social consequences. This paper comes at the problem of conceptual misconnection by clarifying different uses of the terms ‘gene’, ‘identity’ and ‘information’. I start by looking at three different conceptions of the gene; the Instrumental, the Nominal and the Postgenomic Molecular. Secondly, a taxonomy of four different concepts of identity is presented; Numeric, Character, Group and Essentialised, and their use is clarified. A general concept of Information is introduced, and finally three distinct kinds of information are described. I then introduce Concept Creep as an ethical problem that arises from conceptual misconnections. The primary goal of this paper is to reduce the potential for conceptual misconnection when discussing genetic identity and genetic information. This is complimented by three secondary goals—1) to clarify what a conceptual misconnection is, 2) to explain why clarity of use is particularly important to discussions of genes, identity and information and 3) to show how concept creep between different uses of genetic identity and genetic information can have important ethical outcomes. (shrink)

There is scarce knowledge about the influence of the professional group, education, and age on public perspectives on the risks and benefits of forensic DNA databases. Based on data collected through an online questionnaire applied to 628 individuals in Portugal, this research fills that gap. More than three quarters of the respondents believed that the Portuguese forensic DNA database can help fight crime more efficiently and develop a swifter and more accurate justice, whereas only approximately half thought that it could (...) deter and prevent crime. Lack of security and control over access to data and the future unforeseen misuses of genetic information were the most relevant risks selected by the participants. Health care and life sciences professionals were more likely to agree with all the benefits, as opposed to those working in the field of law enforcement. More educated and older participants disagreed with benefits more often. Concerns with the risks increased with age. (shrink)

In this brief report, the authors argue that while a lot of concerns about forensic DNA databases have been raised using arguments from biomedical ethics, these databases are used in a complete different context from other biomedical tools. Because they are used in the struggle against crime, the decision to create or store a genetic profile cannot be left to the individual. Instead, this decision is made by officials of a society. These decisions have to be based on a policy (...) that is the concretisation of some of society's most fundamental ideas about its own nature and function. Individuals wanting to influence these decisions have to try to influence this policy, within the bounds of a state's own self-concept. This article is an attempt to reorient the discussion about forensic DNA databases from a biomedical debate to a more political–philosophical one. (shrink)

The public’s understanding of forensic DNA databases remains undertheorized and few empirical studies have been produced. This article aims to address this omission by exploring the answers to an open-ended question taken from an online questionnaire regarding the reasons for individuals’ voluntarily accepting or refusing to allow their DNA profile to be included in the Portuguese forensic DNA database. The analysis is undertaken from the perspective of biological citizenship and the simultaneous empowering and disempowering effects of surveillance. The results indicate (...) a pragmatic ethical framework that is linked to the cultural and emotional elements of altruism, resistance, stigma, and social representations of what is beneficial or harmful to the individual and to society. These subjectivities are anchored in commonplace images and metaphors for genetics, DNA, and forensic science that circulate in the messages transmitted by the media which pervade everyday life; hierarchies of trust in science and the justice system; and moral categories associated with the individual self-judgment in relation to crime, surveillance, and social order. (shrink)