DNA Database - what's the problem?

[HecatesTwopenceworth]

After being unable to understand why ID cards/database are a problem/dangerous and currently waiting for someone to explain it to me I thought I'd ask about a story I saw on the news today.

DNA database - previously the dna taken from people arrested has been kept, now there will be time limits set on how long it can be kept.

I don't see the problem with a dna database. In fact, I don't see why we don't take a sample at birth - when the midwife does the heel prick etc and record it then.

I can hear you gasping in horror because I understand most people are outraged at the thought of such info being held. What I don't get, is why. The reasons do not seem logical to me at all.

It's only to be a record, not an actual sample, isn't it? Unless people think that the police will recreate the dna and plant it at crime scenes or something, I just don't see why it is frightening.

All I can see is the benefit of being able to match dna from crime scenes, of no more paternity disputes... I don't understand why it's a threat to anyone.

It is a affront on personal freedom, and yet another slide into a paternalistic government run society.
Stand up for your rights people, before they all get eroded away
You can't do anything today without someone watching you
Doesn't that freak people out?

Yes, of course DNA has the ability to assist in solving crimes. But this should be used as an investigative tool requiring safeguards to be put in place.

Similarly, raiding a person's home unexpectedly, detaining for long periods without bail, are all investigative tools which the police can use, but all have safeguards in place to ensure that the state's power isn't abused without due process and due cause.

Mumcentreplus there are no proposals to store everyones DNA profile. This debate has come about as the European ruling is actually driving England to reduce the amount of data stored. The police will only be keeping the DNA of people arrested on suspiscion of a crime (and even then I am not sure if it is all crimes or just crimes where they have a crime scene sample to match to). The DNA will be stored for a maximum of 12 years depending on the crime. We are not talking about a national DNA database of everyone.

ilovemydogandMrObama
"More to the point, why does DNA need to be on a datebase?

I wouldn't object to it being stored for medical purposes, but am not happy for the police to have access to it."

People could derive much much much more data generated from a stored DNA sample (for example the ability to look for disease markers) than a DNA profile. I would be happy to have a DNA profile for identification stored....I would question a DNA sample being stored (by government agencies). Obviously medical research is a very different subject.

WRT why - I believe the arguments are helping to find suspects. The BBc quotes "official" data suggesting that the removal of the proposed data will lead to 4,500 crimes going unsolved per year. That number would theoretically grow year on year as the database grows. If this is accurately based on fact that is the justification for it.

policywonk I have a bit of proper work work to do but hope to get to the Guardian in a bit, there are rather a lot of comments to filter through

IWanted I was responding to the comment the OP made
'I don't see the problem with a dna database. In fact, I don't see why we don't take a sample at birth - when the midwife does the heel prick etc and record it then.'I have a problem with this..

and i do have a problem with innocent citizens DNA being held also.

Why should we worry about this government having hte DNA information of every single person in hte country? After all
-we already have the highest concentration of CCTV in the world
-they are introducing the logging of every single mobile phone call
-they have number plate recognition so they can track your movements
-they have amalgamated Govt departments so that info can be swapped about between different sections of the State
-they lied to us about Iraq and WMD
-they have tried to undo Magna Carta and hold people without trial for as long as they can get away with
-they assisted the Americans with Guantanamo
(there's probably more, that's just off the top of my head)

Why wouldn't I trust them?

OK, you are distinguishing between a sample and a profile, which means you have more knowledge about DNA than most.

I think the current DNA database is for all crimes where a sample has been taken, and this is what exists for 12 years, rather than where a forensic sample has been matched.

It isn't that DNA evidence should or shouldn't be used. Of course if the technology is there, then it should be used as a tool along with other tools per the PACE guidelines

OK I have put an old name on as it seems appropriate on this thread.

Current database (as I understand it) contains all profiles (since 1995) which were acquired during criminal investigations. These profiles are maintained on the database infintely. The change in regulations mean that the government will be forced to destroy that data after 6/12 years. What I don't know is whether DNA is obtained from all suspects - I suspect not - only the ones where they have DNA from crime scene to match it to.

Any it goes without saying that a DNA match should only be used as part as a package of evidence to obtain/support a conviction.

Right I am off to the Guardian. I could be some time.

OK - I will bring hte Guardian points in one by one as I come to them...

First point relates to uniqueness of a DNA profile - the comment points at there being a 1 in a billion chance that someone else could have the same profile.

There is a possibility that DNA profiles are not unique. The problem here is that scientists don't deal in absolutes (such as the word unique) - so they propose probabilities...the media pick up on this and interpret this as the fact that there is I think a 1 in 100billlion (rather than 1 in billion quoted in the comment - although I may be looking at an American source of info and I think an American Billion is different) chance that someone shares your profile (based on teh current profiling method) - unless ID twins obviously. To all intents and purposes they are expected to be unique - although there is no scientific proof (evidence yes proof no) to say they are not unique. If you take the fact that the world population is 6 billion ish - the profiles are highly likely to be unique....and if they are not then the chances of charging the wrong indivdual with matching DNA when there should be a package of evidence is remote IMO.

Just come accross a comment saying that is someone got hold of the database they could plant someone elses DNA at a crime scene to avoid detection of the real criminal.

That is just hideous. The database is information. It is data. It is not a physical sample. According to the BBC website the physcial sample is destroyed as soon as the data required for the database is generated.

And in that same comment they say "it is childsplay to clone DNA"

Yup it is pretty easy to clone a fragment of DNA. Takes a couple of days tops. BUT it is impossible to clone a whole (mammalian) genome.

OK - just come across a comment about the government selling the database to other agencies - with the examples given being big pharma/bupa who will then use it to prevent giving you life insurance as they "know" you are going to get cancer.....

Not possible for the reasons above. The DNA database tells you nothing about disease.

The same poster also talks about reducing stringency of the test - giving the example that a DNA test usually consists of 13 individual mini tests (actually it is 10 + a sex marker in the UK). If they don't get a match they will accept a match on 9 mini-tests or 8 mini-tests in court therefore increasing the probability that the profile won't be unique.

Yes it will reduce the probability that it is unique - but so long as it is used in the correct context it can still support a case. TBH although scientifically it is possible I can't comment on whether it actually happens in the UK court of law as I have no knowledge of that side things.

Totally irrelevant to the DNA stuff but PMSL with this comment:

"I wouldn't trust this government with baby sitting a comatose tortoise"

Thanks for this DoNotAnnoy, it's very interesting.

Will you be brave enough to post to that effect on the Guardian site and watch the other posters' brains explode?

ILove... - do you work in this field as well then?

Another problem with the DNA database is that it encourages lazy policing.

When my sister was subject to a very frightening, sexually-motivated attack by an intruder, the police were full of promises about 'we'll catch him, love, don't you worry'. What really happened was that six months later she got the evidence bag back. They'd checked the fingerprints - not on file and the DNA - not on file. And spoken to all her ex-boyfriends (very embarrassing and she'd have noticed if it was one of them, anyway).

They couldn't be arsed to interview potential witnesses, such as the mini-cab driver who had picked up a fare at the end of her road at exactly the time the intruder would have been leaving and told my sister the fare was acting strangely. They didn't bother to follow up other leads.

It's odds-on there is a man out there who feels free to carry out more attacks on women. Because the police (or at least the CID bit) rely on fingerprints and DNA and can't be bothered to actually do their ruddy job.

Once we have a database that covers most of the population, all the cops will do is check it, and if they don't get a match, will just leave the records in the bottom drawer and move onto something else that is an easier win for the clear-up rate.

(It gets even worse - I spotted a story in the local rag about a strikingly similar crime. Contacted my local police just in case, who contacted my sister's force - who couldn't be bothered to respond.)

(Oh, and my sister's landlord at the time was CID - if they can't be bothered to investigate a crime on their own colleague's property, what hopes are there for the rest of us?)

Just getting into a few posts which talk about the BNP selling the data to Al queda and then Al queda cloning us WTF!?!?!?

Not possible. The information in the database is worse than useless for cloning. And even if the information required for cloning was in the database the full human genome would have to be made synthetically before you could clone which with current technology (and technology foreseeable in my lifetime) is impossible.

Again a DNA sample would change things slightly but in this instance I don't think so massively.

Christ edam, how nasty. Hope your sister is OK.

at Al Qaeda cloning scenario. Cloning infidels possibly not top of its To Do list, anyway.

Now we are on race/ethnicity. I don't think the markers used can confirm race. I don't even think they can suggest race. I am not 100% sure on that though and I can't find any info on net to support or otherwise.

Ihave been through all of the comments - I think I have picked out the technical stuff (deliberately avoided etihcal and politcal debates ).

If there is anything which I haven't covered that you want me to look at specifically just shout. I did start skimming rapidly at the end!

Oh and if the debate is still raging tomorrow I may sumon up the motivation to post on the debate.

What I have seen from this is that there is a gross mis-understanding about the difference between a forensic DNA profile, a DNA sample, a gene sequence, and a full genome sequence and the potential value of each of those to various professional and malicious agencies. It is this mis-understanding IMO that fuels much (but not all) of the objection to a national DNA database...maybe a bit of sound education (which they will almost certainly ignore) may go a little way....

Thank you so much DNA - sorry to take up so much of your time.

I'm definitely guilty of the sort of ignorance you describe. I had no idea that there was a distinction between samples and profiles before reading your comments, for instance.

No worries - I wouldn't have done it if I didn't find it interesting....

edam, I agree that a large DNA profile database will encourage lazy policing. And, let us not forget, the police has a long history of fitting up people that they reckon committed certain crimes even if it meant they had to fabricate evidence and statements to "prove" it.

The integrity of the data in that database also worries me greatly. I'll admit I'm no expert on DNA profiling (although I appreciate the difference between that and samples) but I do know databases and big IT systems.

In particular, I know that a big problem with any large database is ensuring that the data going into it is correct and accurate. This is a human-factor problem (people make mistakes) and so not something that you can entirely and reliably solve.

If one person's DNA profile got accidentally associated with a different person's name and address, there is the potential for someone having a really bad day. Sure, it probably wouldn't lead to a conviction on that evidence alone, but it may well be enough for them to be charged and remanded. For months, quite possibly.