Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The promise and perils of criminal DNA databanking

Nature Biotechnology volume 18, pages 695–696 (2000)Cite this article

Embryonic stem cells, GM foods, microbe patents, and cloning have all been greeted with some measure of public opprobrium. Not so with DNA profiling technologies. Save philandering presidents and descendants of Louis XVII, nearly everyone has something good to say about them. They've vindicated the Left's assaults on capital punishment and freed over 60 death row inmates. They've fortified the cause of law and order by solving countless criminal investigations and arming prosecutors with irrefutable evidence, and they've provided many rape victims the small solace of knowing their assailants have been (or may be soon) brought to justice. But behind this nearly universal mist of euphoria dwell important ethical deficiencies in how DNA samples are collected and processed in the operation of criminal DNA databanks. With New York State, which operates one of the largest criminal justice systems in the US, proposing massive renovations in its DNA databanking policy, these concerns are especially pertinent.

DNA databanks provide a function similar to fingerprint indices, in that they allow investigators to compare genetic profiles recovered from crime scenes with those taken from convicted individuals. But facile analogies to fingerprints obscure critical differences that warrant ethical solicitude1. First, DNA is far more information-rich than fingerprints; it contains the cipher of a person's hereditary propensities and susceptibilities, parentage, and racial origins. Second, DNA is a more dependable informant, in that it is durable, amplifiable from minute quantities, and recoverable from the skin particles, hair roots, and finger smudges we leave unwittingly in our wake. Third, genetic information is, unlike fingerprints, shared among biological relatives. As a result, the decision to place in a databank one person's DNA profile is an indirect decision to do the same with the half-profiles of that person's biological siblings and parents. Collectively, these differences raise concerns with respect to criminal DNA databanking's expanding ambit, irresolute storage policies, and questionable authorizations for how banked DNA samples can be used. A recent survey of US and foreign criminal DNA databanking laws indicates that whereas databanks have been extending themselves into uncharted ethical areas, they have also failed to repair deficiencies present since their inception (J. Kimmelman, unpublished data).

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Annas, G.J., Glantz, L.H. & Roche, P.A. The Genetic Privacy Act and commentary. (Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA; 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  2. McEwen, J.E. & Reilly, P.R. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 54, 941–958 (1994).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. McEwen, J.E. in Stored tissue samples: ethical, legal, and public policy implications (eds Weir, R.F.) 311–328 (University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, IA; 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gugliotta, G. A rush to DNA sampling: vital police tool? Affront to liberty? Both? Washington Post, July 7, p. A1 (1999).

  5. Blair, J. Police chiefs join in call for more DNA sampling. New York Times, August 16, p. B5 (1999).

  6. LA Rev. Stat. § 15:601 et seq.

  7. Males, M. & Macallair, D. The color of justice: an analysis of juvenile-adult court transfers in California. (Justice Policy Institute, San Francisco, CA; 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Butterfield, F. Racial disparities seen as pervasive in juvenile justice. New York Times, April 26, p. A1 (2000).

  9. 42 USC § 14131.

  10. ALA Code § 36-18-20 et seq.

  11. Anonymous. Right to privacy protected by Massachusetts decision. Biotechnology Newswatch, September 7, p. 4 (1998).

  12. Phillips, J.A. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 57, 1499–1500 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lawson, K. CrimTrac to provide speedy suspect identification. Canberra Times, July 22, 1999, p. A1.

  14. Criminal Code RSC 1985, Chapter C-46, s.487 et seq. (1996).

  15. Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, Part IV et seq. (1994).

  16. Pascal, C. La France se dote d'un fichier national d'empreintes genetiques. Le Monde, March 21, p. 10 (2000).

  17. Peerenboom, E. Nat. Biotechnol. 16, 510–511 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Morton, J. A guide to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994. (Butterworths, London, UK; 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Werrett, D. Testimony, National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence. (National Institute of Justice, Oak Brook, IL; 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Anonymous. Fed: mass DNA screenings OK if voluntary, says Williams. AAP Newsfeed, April 16, (2000).

  21. Thompson, W.-A. A forensic blood bank? RCMP solve a murder by soliciting DNA samples, but have not returned them. British Columbia Report, September 13, p. 43 (1999).

  22. Lambert, B. Giuliani backs DNA testing of newborns for ID. New York Times, December 17, p. B4 (1998).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. associate, Center for Professional and Applied Ethics, University of Manitoba, Canada

    Jonathan Kimmelman

Authors
  1. Jonathan Kimmelman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kimmelman, J. The promise and perils of criminal DNA databanking. Nat Biotechnol 18, 695–696 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/77173

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/77173

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing