DNA pioneer appeals for cuts to criminal database
September 10, 2009 By JILL LAWLESS , Associated Press Writer
This is a Sept. 2004 file photo of British scientist Alec Jeffreys, the man who discovered DNA fingerprinting. Twenty-five years ago Thursday, British scientist Alec Jeffreys realized that individuals have "DNA fingerprints," unique patterns of genetic material that can be used to identify them. The discovery has solved thousands of crimes, put murderers behind bars, split and reunited families _ and launched a fierce debate about privacy and human rights. On the anniversary of his discovery, Jeffreys worried that police are using a database of DNA samples taken from suspects to brand innocent people "future criminals." (AP Photo/Rui Vieira/PA/file)
(AP) -- Like so many great discoveries, it was an accident. British scientist Alec Jeffreys realized 25 years ago Thursday that individuals have "DNA fingerprints," unique patterns of genetic material that can be used to identify them. The discovery has solved thousands of crimes, put murderers behind bars, split and reunited families - and launched a fierce debate about privacy and human rights.
On the anniversary of his discovery, Jeffreys worried that police are using a database of DNA samples taken from suspects to brand innocent people "future criminals."
Britain's DNA database is the largest in the world, containing genetic profiles of more than 5 million people. Samples are taken from everyone arrested for a crime - and the information is usually retained even if the person is acquitted or freed without charge.
Jeffreys, 59, said about 800,000 innocent people were on the database, raising fears of "discrimination, breach of genetic privacy, stigmatization - there's a whole host of issues here."
"Innocent people do not belong on that database," Jeffreys, a geneticist at the University of Leicester in central England, told the BBC. "Branding them as future criminals is not a proportionate response in the fight against crime."
British police can take DNA samples from anyone who is arrested, and keep the profiles even if the suspect is never charged - although the original blood, saliva or other genetic material is destroyed. The information is stored on one of the world's largest DNA databases, which was set up in 1995 and now holds information on 8 percent of the country's population. The FBI's national U.S. database, although larger, has information on about 0.5 percent of Americans.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain's "blanket and indiscriminate" policy of retaining genetic information breached the right to privacy.
In response, Britain agreed to remove hundreds of thousands of innocent people from the database, but said it would still keep the profiles of those cleared of serious crimes for up to 12 years. Critics, including Jeffreys, say the decision flouts the spirit of the court ruling.
Jeffreys and his colleagues made their discovery by accident on the morning of Sept. 10, 1984, while researching inherited diseases. They developed a way of isolating bits of DNA and turning them into X-ray images. Looking at the first such images, from three members of one family, Jeffreys realized the individual patterns were different, but also that parent-child relationships could clearly be seen.
In effect they were genetic bar codes, maps of sequences within the strands of DNA that are unique to each individual - except identical twins, who share the same pattern.
"Within seconds it was obvious that we'd stumbled upon a DNA-based method not only for biological identification, but also for sorting out family relationships," he told the BBC. "It really was an extraordinary moment."
Within a couple of years the knowledge was being used to convict murderers and clear the wrongly accused, to identify the victims of war and settle paternity disputes.
It also proved that Dolly, the world's first cloned mammal, really was a genetic copy of another sheep.
The government says that last year DNA matches solved more than 17,000 crimes in Britain, including 83 killings and 184 rapes.
Jeffreys said the discovery - which brought him fame and, in 1994, a knighthood - showed that scientists must be given freedom to conduct research driven by nothing but curiosity. He said "unfettered, fundamental, curiosity-driven" research was just as important as science aimed at solving specific problems.
"I am saying you have to have a mixed economy," Jeffreys said in an interview released by the university to mark the anniversary of the discovery.
"You don't have to put all your eggs into this great common basket that will deliver answers to questions that you can define, because the far more exciting thing is that it delivers questions that you never knew existed - and that to me is infinitely more valuable because that sets the future agenda."
And what discovery would Jeffreys most like to see in the next 25 years?
"No-brainer," he said. "Extraterrestrial life. I would love to see that before I die."
©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
May 07, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Why? What is wrong with your DNA being stored even if you are innocent? Years back I had to be fingerprinted for a high security job. I was told my fingerprints would be kept on file indefinitely with the FBI. So what. The only way it affects me is if I decide to become a criminal. Otherwise my prints just sit there in some computer database. The fact that I *DO* have my fingerprints on file with the FBI does not make me a criminal. The behavior would though!
Keep the DNA! It is a great resource.
The violation would be if they kept the sample, which could be planted on a scene or all kinds of horrible, unethical things...
I'm a big fan of the Bill of Rights and I don't see there being a direct violation of the 4th in this. They store names, addresses, social security numbers, drivers license numbers, license plate numbers, thumb prints; DNA in this application is identification. There's no violation of privacy (in this application it's just as a part of your public identity) or autonomy. It's like a DUI stop point, a similar greater protection of society is not achievable by any other means, I think they should allow it.
Every time I purchase a firearm, it's tied to my identity and my identity to being a firearm owner, it's very likely if I'm ever pulled over I will be treated very differently than any other civilian, I've committed no crime, do I think that's wrong, no, I think it's reasonable and smart and serves to protect society, where no other means could in a similar way.
But seriously, there is a lot of room for abuse here. It is common, in a world of countless police districts to hear of an instance of poor dicipline where cops use police resources to intimidate and extort. If some cop or sherif for that matter decides that he will use DNA swabs and a database to identify people who are not committing crimes but are doing something they want kept secret...
Oh, but then just live a good honest life and you will be fine you say? What if someone with power over you or your money doesn't? Your employer has an affair and suddenly your promotion goes to a cop's relative.
The right to privacy and to live without interference from others, including those in government who think they own you, is a self-evident right of the American people.
Those in other countries who which to live under greater degrees of servitude and surrender are free to do as they like.