Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Letting Out the TECHNOCORRECTIONS Genie

Alec Jeffreys, the genetics professor who invented DNA fingerprinting in 1984 and went on to help police crack the Pitchfork case, is justifiably proud of his discovery.

He has a blurry image of the first ever DNA fingerprint on the wall of his office at Leicester University in central England.

Yet he is worried. He fears society has failed to grasp the ethical issues of DNA collection, its potential for abuse and the limitations of genetic analysis.

"The legislation is lagging really rather seriously behind the use of the database," he said.

"I take the simple view that my genome is mine. Under some circumstances, I'll allow the state limited access. But prying into my DNA ...? I am wholly opposed to that."
……………..
The size of the British collection, which is growing by 30,000 a month, reflects the fact that police powers to take DNA are wider in England and Wales than in any other country.


Under 2001 rules DNA can be taken without consent from any person arrested for a serious, or "recordable", crime and kept even if that individual turns out to be innocent. In Scotland, samples must be destroyed if there is no charge.
……………………………..
New government proposals would allow police to catalogue DNA from those arrested for "non-recordable" crimes, such as littering and minor traffic offences.


Fanning the flames, a senior judge last month called for genetic details of everyone living in Britain, and all those who visited the country, to be added to the national DNA database, in a move described by human rights group Liberty as "chilling".

Britain's leading ethical think-tank, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, has demanded a change of tack.

It urged the government in September to scrap its plans for wider DNA collection and stop the authorities keeping the DNA of people found innocent, arguing police efforts would be better spent on gathering more DNA from crime scenes.

Britain's Home Office, however, says crime statistics show current practices are effective, with 8,000 samples found to match DNA from crime scenes out of a total of 200,000 "innocent" samples collected by the end of 2005.

"We must consider anything which frees up police time or improves the efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations," a spokeswoman said.
………………………
"If you are removing DNA from just a few cells from the scene of crime, you have no idea whether those cells are necessarily relevant to the criminal act or not," Jeffreys said.
"DNA does not have the words 'innocent' or 'guilty' written in it."


For those of you unconcerned about where TECHNO might go, let’s rewind the tape, shall we?

"We must consider anything which frees up police time or improves the efficiency and effectiveness of police investigations," a spokeswoman said.

Ah, the old “it’s ok, it’s efficient.” No authoritarian has ever said it better.

No comments: