Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

DNA database, universal
Section H. Health, science and technology

Many countries have set up DNA databases of convicted criminals. Britain has controversially included the DNA of all those suspected of a crime even if there was no conviction, but now must delete those records after two years if there has been no conviction. But should governments set up DNA databases for all their citizens? Such DNA databases could have wide-ranging uses for research, health and crime, but many think the invasion of privacy is too great. A debate could be had just about criminal databases, but this article looks at the introduction of a universal database.

Pros

[1] A universal database would be an invaluable tool in fighting crime. Many crime scenes contain blood, saliva or semen and these could be matched against a database. Alongside more traditional investigative methods, this could lead to more criminals being caught faster and more criminals being caught overall.

[2] A DNA database would also be useful to the judicial process; it can help a jury reach a verdict more expeditiously. It may even act as a deterrent to crimes as people would know that their DNA would identify and convict them.

[3] There are public health benefits to a universal DNA database. Researchers would be able to use the database to track genes and advance our understanding of predictive and preventative medicine. As the Human Genome Project progresses, this is the next step in understanding our genetic make-up.

[4] There are a range of other miscellaneous benefits including identifying bodies, establishing paternity and tracing missing children.

[5] We should not be concerned about the loss of privacy here. The information would be protected and its use would be regulated; for example, legislation could be passed to prevent employers or insurance companies having access to an individual’s genetic information. Innocent people have nothing to fear from the police being able to run a DNA search on them. Research would be done with anonymised data.

[6] The cost of producing and maintaining a database may well be balanced out by the saving of police time and the advances in preventative medicine.

Cons

[1] The police can already search for the DNA of convicted criminals. Additionally, they can take samples from suspects to check. DNA is most useful in violent and sexual crimes, not many of which are committed by first-time criminals who do not know the victims. The effect of this, therefore, would be minimal and would not justify keeping the DNA of the whole population, most of whom will never commit a crime. The state should not treat its citizens as potential criminals from birth.

[2] Once a suspect has been identified by traditional policing methods, DNA evidence can be used. A sample can then be taken that can help to clear somebody’s name or to establish a guilty verdict. If the only available evidence is a DNA match from the database, then something may well be wrong, but juries can be unduly swayed by what they see as ’indisputable’ evidence.

[3] The scientific community needs to convince people to donate their DNA in order to further research — it cannot expect it to be taken without consent. Blood and organs also have large medical benefits, but we accept that consent must be given before they can be used, even after death.

[4] People should be able voluntarily to give DNA samples if the situation arises; for example, to establish paternity or to check for hereditary diseases, but the choice should be theirs and the information should not be stored afterwards. That way, many of the benefits of DNA technology can be gained without the downsides.

[5] This is a huge invasion of privacy and a step towards a Big Brother state. The government should not be able to store the very essence of our identity and information about our genetic propensities which we do not even know ourselves. The potential for abuse of the database is huge. Insurance companies, employers and even the government itself may all want to see what is encoded in our genes, but that is our private information. In addition, we do not know what else we will discover that DNA carries, so we do not even understand the scale of the risk. Governments do not have a good record of keeping large amounts of information secure, and if this data were hacked, anybody could then have access to the secrets of our genes.

[6] The financial cost of a DNA database would be very high and cannot be justified by the limited benefits.

Possible motions

This House would establish a universal DNA database.

This House asks the government to keep its hands off my DNA.

Related topics

Eugenics: IVF and genetic screening

Genetic engineering

National identity cards