The Ethical Issues Surrounding The Forensic Uses Of Dna

DNA testing is the most accurate way to identify an individual, and should therefore be used to increase the effectiveness of our justice system. This brings to light the issue of genetic privacy. Society questions the motives of government in DNA collection and floods the media, which acts as an informal actor on the court, with ideas of this invasion of privacy and encroachment of biological liberties. The 2010 article, Create a National DNA Database? stated that “such sensitive information is prone to misuse, and one should not have such blind faith in the security of government access to it.” EPIC, the electronic privacy

This paper examines Carrell et al’s research along with three other scholarly research articles to better understand the effects that the DNA recovered from a crime scene has on a particular case and the forensic science community.

DNA forensics is a division of forensic science that focuses on the use of genetic material in criminal investigation to answer questions pertaining to legal situations, including criminal and civil cases. Through DNA testing, law enforcement officers are able to identify human remains or the individual responsible for a crime. DNA testing is a highly advanced scientific process that involves replicating the human DNA sequence to create a genetic map of an individual. Because of its reliability, DNA testing has become a significant factor in criminal cases. However, it has also been identified as having the potential to violate privacy and constitutional rights. The DNA identification process consists of five stages. These five stages

Recently it was passed that all states, apart from Western Australia have the right to compose a DNA database (The Sydney Telegraph, 22.04.2001 see appendix two) and already there had been a few flaws found. With

DNA testing was first used in criminal prosecutions in 1985 and is now admissible in all states. (Hails, 184) Scientific and legal communities seem to universally accept the use of DNA as “good” evidence. Questions could arise regarding testing procedures. There are several testing methods that have been proven reliable and easily pass general acceptance and scientific validity tests. This is causes number of Daubert cases questioning DNA to decline. “In most cases, the tests that are used are well established and do not require a separate hearing” (Hails, 160)

forensic identification technique today1. It is the case of analyzing and profiling a DNA sample

III. Today I will discuss how DNA is tested, how reliable DNA evidence is, and contamination issues that could arise in DNA evidence.

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the development of DNA analysis technology has revolutionised the field of forensic science within the criminal justice system. As the refinement of procedures and technology continues, even minute samples of biological material (including blood, saliva, semen and skin cells) are able to be analysed and used to link or acquit perpetrators of crimes. (Whitney, R n.d.)

DNA testing is a critical and accurate tool in linking accused and even convicted criminals for crimes, and should be widely used to assess guilt or innocence before jail sentences are imposed. It was started up by scientists Francis C. Crick and James D, Watson in 1953 as they had described the uses, structures and purpose of the DNA “deoxyribonucleic acid” genetic fingerprint that contains organism information about an individual (testing

Due to the uniqueness of DNA it has become a powerful tool in criminal investigations

DNA’s certainty is dramatized in today’s society, which gives lay people the impression that DNA is infallible; however, in the case of Wayne Butler and others, the fallibility of DNA is exposed. Wayne Butler was accused of sadistically murdering Natasha Douty who was found beaten to death on Brampton Island in 1983. Wayne Butler was vacationing on Brampton Island during the timeframe of the murder; however, claimed to be jogging during this time. After submitting a blood test, Butler was eliminated as a suspect. However, Butler was arrested in 2001 for this murder because semen, which was found on the towel at the crime scene, was found to be a match. The John Tonge Centre performed a DNA test on the evidence on the towel. Butler was found innocent after it was identified that the John Tonge Centre mislabeled the test tubes containing the crime scene evidence. (“DNA Evidence”) This case proves that DNA testing may not be as reliable as we think.

Before the 1980s, courts relied on testimony and eyewitness accounts as a main source of evidence. Notoriously unreliable, these techniques have since faded away to the stunning reliability of DNA forensics. In 1984, British geneticist Alec Jeffreys of the University of Leicester discovered an interesting new marker in the human genome. Most DNA information is the same in every human, but the junk code between genes is unique to every person. Junk DNA used for investigative purposes can be found in blood, saliva, perspiration, sexual fluid, skin tissue, bone marrow, dental pulp, and hair follicles (Butler, 2011). By analyzing this junk code, Jeffreys found certain sequences of 10 to 100 base pairs repeated multiple times. These tandem

The AHA conference in this year features at least 4 sessions directly related to my current field---the social studies of genetics, especially the modern DNA technology. My dissertation investigates how the progress of forensic technology empowers both the military and soldiers’ families in searching for the American soldiers missing in previous conflicts. Learning other social impacts of medical or forensic technology, like those on racial equality and law enforcement, will significantly broaden my horizon in how the broader American society responded to the introduction of new biological technologies and how ordinary citizens monitored their application. In the AHA conference this year, sessions 79, 198, 248, and 295 are focusing on political and bioethics issues brought with new genetic or medical technology. Other sessions related to the conception of death in the Western culture and American veteran affairs are also my priority during this conference.

With regard to the US, where social science and STS research have, focused less on forensic databases and more on the production of expertise and evidence in court, Jay Aronson provided a historical account of the early practices, the scientific and legal controversies, and the ultimately successful acceptance of forensic DNA evidence in court in 2007. Another particularity of social science and STS research in this domain is that it has so far mostly concentrated its “high end” forensic technologies, namely those which received a lot of public attention because they were new, because stakeholders in the criminal justice system struggled to determine the parameters of scientific reliability and admissibility, or because they were prominently featured in the media. While the use of DNA analysis for police investigations and forensic casework dates back to the late 1980s, the second half of the 1990s marked the beginning of the quest to render DNA profiles systematically and routinely searchable and minable by setting up centralized DNA databases in many countries around the world. A DNA molecule is a long, twisting chain known as a double helix. DNA looks pretty complex, but it's really made of only four nucleotides: Adenine, Cytosine, Guanine, and Thymine. These nucleotides exist as base pairs that link together like a ladder. Adenine and Thymine always bond together as a pair, and Cytosine and Guanine bond together as a pair.

Recent advancements in DNA technology have improved law enforcement’s ability to use DNA to solve old cases. Original forensic applications of DNA analysis were developed using a technology called restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Although very old cases (more than 10 years) may not have had RFLP analysis done, this kind of DNA testing may have been attempted on more recent unsolved cases. However, because RFLP analysis required a relatively large quantity of DNA, testing may not have been successful. Similarly, biological evidence deemed insufficient in size for testing may not have been previously submitted for testing. Also, if a biological sample was degraded by environmental factors such as dirt or mold, RFLP analysis may have been unsuccessful at yielding a result (Turman).