Affiliation:
1. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Biotechnology Education, Baltimore, MD Institution 2: Savannah State University, Department of Chemistry and Forensic Science
Abstract
Prisoners are some of the most vulnerable populations in our society today, often relinquishing to the state everything from medical autonomy to family support. In a system where wrongful convictions are not unheard of, it is critical that we preserve the civil rights of investigative subjects wherever possible. Law enforcement agencies in the United States have increasingly begun using direct-to-consumer recreational genetic databases as a tool to enable forensic investigations. These commercial genetic testing companies analyze polymorphisms in DNA to isolate genealogical information, medical data, and other traits. Traditionally, law enforcement has been restricted to the use of matching repeating sequences in non-coding sections of DNA. However, through services like GEDMatch, law enforcement has gained access to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers from upwards of 25 million consumers throughout the world. This rapidly developing technology must be regulated to ensure that consumers, as well as blood relatives of consumers, are not unfairly targeted by investigations. With studies indicating that DNA is typically reported as the single most important piece of evidence to jurors, it is in the best interests of policymakers to ensure that the DNA data is both accurate and used fairly. First, we will provide a background of the technology and regulation of direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing databases in law enforcement. Second, we propose a mechanism by which states might legislate the appropriate use of these databases by law enforcement by limiting access and enforcing a double-blind system. This paper lays out the background and policy proposal for a requirement of direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies to communicate the possibility and type of information shared with law enforcement, and a framework by which policymakers can ensure unbiased and minimally intrusive use by law enforcement.
Publisher
Journal of Science Policy and Governance, Inc.
Reference19 articles.
1. Brown T. R. 2019. “Why We Fear Genetic Informants: Using Genetic Genealogy to Catch Serial Killers.” The Columbia science and technology law review, 21(1), 114–181. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7946161/
2. California v. Greenwood, et al. 1988. 486 U.S. 35. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/486/35
3. Covolo, L., S. Rubinelli, E. Ceretti, and G. Umberto. 2015. “Internet-based direct-to-consumer genetic testing: A systematic review.” Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(12). https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4378
4. de Groot NF, B. C. van Beers, and G. Meynen. 2021. Commercial DNA tests and police investigations: a broad bioethical perspective. Journal of Medical Ethics 47(12). https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2021-107568
5. Department of Justice. 2023. “Collecting DNA evidence at property crime scenes: Profile types.” https://nij.ojp.gov/nij-hosted-online-training-courses/codis/collecting-dna-evidence-at-property-crime-scenes/profile-types