Karnchanit Wachirapaet

Rose

Science 10

October 2018

The Social Implications of DNA Databases in Forensic Science

Since ancient times, criminal investigation has been done using various methods with the

purpose to disclose the criminal’s identity to bring him to his condemnation. Throughout the

history of forensic science, numerous processes have been developed to increase the efficiency

and accuracy of the investigations. The advancement in technology has enabled the discovery of

DNA in 1953 (“A Brief History,” n.d.), which has led to the development of DNA profiling.

DNA profiling is the process of obtaining a “specific DNA pattern, called a profile” given by the

analysis of DNA polymorphisms, also known as “[d]ifferences in [the] variable regions [of

DNA] between people” to determine the biological connection between two individuals (“DNA

Profiling,” 2005). Collections of DNA profiles are recorded on a platform called DNA databases.

In 1995, the United Kingdom launched the world’s first national DNA database, which contains

DNA profiles of “mostly [people] who have been suspects in investigations or convicted of

crimes” (“What is the,” n.d.). Comparing a DNA sample from the crime scene and a DNA

profile on a DNA database can either justify or convict a suspect. In this essay, benefits and

potential damages of the use of DNA databases to solve crimes are taken into consideration to

evaluate its social implications. The forensic use of DNA databases has enhanced society in a

variety of ways. At the same time, it equally poses risks to have adverse impacts on societies.
 Essentially, DNA databases enable the derivation of strong evidence in crime

investigation, which has been proved to be an effective method to solve cold cases. Cold cases

are cases that are left unsolved due to the insufficiency of evidence (Merriam-Webster, n.d.). In

the past, when there was no DNA technology, a crime that did not have enough evidence to

convict a suspect or even identify one remained unsolved to this day and became cold cases.

Nowadays, investigators can search for matches of DNA samples collected from the crime scene

and the DNA samples documented in DNA databases to affirm the presence of a suspect at the

crime scene for further inspection. A very recent example of how a DNA database is used to

solve a cold case is the arrest of the infamous Golden State Killer. On 25 April 2018, Joseph

James DeAngelo, also known as the Golden State Killer, was found and arrested (Lussenhop

2018). Apparently, the DNA profile of the Golden State Killer was compared with DNA profiles

on the public DNA database of GEDmatch, a genealogy website, which led the investigators to a

relative of DeAngelo who had previously used the website (Lussenhop 2018). After gathering

more information, the investigators were able to “isolate [DeAngelo] as a suspect” (Lussenhop

2018) and arrest him after his collected DNA samples are confirmed to match the DNA profile of

the Golden State Killer. From 1976 to 1986, “the Golden State Killer has committed at least 12

murders, 45 rapes and hundreds of home break-ins” (Lussenhop 2018). The investigation to

uncover his identity took around 40 years, which is 32 years after he “raped and beat [his last

known victim] to death” (Lussenhop 2018) in 1986. Back then, investigators were working very

hard on this case (Lussenhop 2018). Nevertheless, “[t]he lack of DNA technology also meant

law enforcement had much less to work with” (Lussenhop 2018). Consequently, the

investigation took decades before the case was finally settled. Following the arrest of the Golden

State Killer, similar cold cases that have been stalled for several decenniums are cracked one by
one. For instances, investigators have successfully confirmed the identity of the murder of Jay

Cook and Tanya Van Cuylen, a Canadian couple that was murdered in 1987, and the murder of

April Tinsley, an 8-year-old girl who was murdered in 1988, in the same manner as the Golden

State Killer case was solved (Flynn, 2018; Snow & Schuppe, 2018). Although the culprits of

these cases had no reports of reoffending during the past ten years, it is still risky to leave them

wandering around because there are still chances of them reoffending. Additionally, cold cases

give a bad impression of the police force by making them look incompetent in the eyes of

citizens, thus having more of them solved heightens citizens’ confidence and trust of the police

force. All in all, DNA databases have served as an advantageous tool to aid the investigation of

crimes.

Wherefore, DNA databases may lead to communities with less criminal activities.

People’s DNA samples are recorded to the national DNA databases only when they are arrested

for a crime or involved in a criminal investigation, making it more convenient to “zero in on

serial offenders” (“DNA Database,” 2016). This will also avert the thoughts of potential

offenders from committing crime (“DNA Database,” 2016). A study conducted by Dr. Jennifer

Doleac (as cited in “DNA Database,” 2016), assistant professor at the University of Virginia

suggests that state DNA databases “reduces the probability of future convictions by 17 percent

for serious violence offenders and by 6 percent for serious property offenders.” Also, the violent

and property crime rates in the United States have lessened in accordance with the expansion of

the DNA databases from 2000 to 2010 (“DNA Database,” 2016). Regardless, the statistics

mentioned above are not up to date and might not be valid anymore. The Biometrics

Commissioner (as cited in McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017) gave a more recent report that in

spite of the 63.3% rate that “a crime scene profile when loaded onto the database will match
against the stored DNA of a person”, DNA samples and profiles in the UK was “associated with

a suspect being charged, or cautioned for example in just 0.3% of all recorded crimes in England

and Wales” as of 2015-2016. According to McCartney and Amankwaa (2017), this rate was

fixed “since the national database was set up in 1995” and “[e]ven in cases where it might be

expected to be important, DNA is still, for the most part, insignificant as a crime solving tool.”

Explicitly, DNA evidence helped to solve only 0.6% of raping cases, 1.4% of domestic

burglaries and 8.4% of homicides, wherein in the majority of cases a prime suspect had already

been isolated (McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017). McCartney and Amankwaa (2017) further

explain, “DNA is simply used to confirm [the suspect’s] identity, and help construct a

prosecution case against them (or persuade them to accept a caution).” In reality, however,

notwithstanding the establishment of the courts in England and Wales that a case with only DNA

evidence can be brought to the court without the requirement of any other evidence, other details

of the case still have to be considered (McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017). Under those

circumstances, the significance of DNA evidence cannot be interpreted by solely looking at the

numerical figures given (McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017). Henceforth, “[t]here is still very

limited proof of how DNA evidence and DNA databases contribute to the fight against crime”

(McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017).

Furthermore, the data on public and national DNA databases may be misused by

individuals for a criminal intent. In today’s world, information can easily be stolen, or more

specifically, “hacked” (Lombardo, n.d.). In fact, Lombardo states, “hackers have already proven

multiple times how versatile they are at accessing data when they want it.” Specifically, more

than 123 million people have their sensitive information exposed in the Experian data breach and

personal details of 50-70 million people were exposed in retail data breaches (Lombardo, n.d.).
Not to mention a recent incident where a genealogy website called MyHeritage was hacked.

Fortunately, the genetic information of users remained secured, but over 92 million users’ email

addresses and their “hashed passwords” were exposed (McGrath, 2018). There are no extreme

consequences to this incident, yet this incident reveals the necessity of holders of DNA databases

to take precautions to prevent similar and worse incidents from happening. The theft of people’s

genetic information can mislead criminal investigation, creating confusion and complication, and

eventually extending the time it takes to solve a crime. Also, if a person’s DNA profile is known

to be present on a DNA database, his DNA sample can be obtained and left in a crime scene in

an attempt to frame him (Lombardo, n.d.). Even worse, scientists at Nucleix (as cited in Harris,

2001), an Israeli company, have claimed that they are capable of manufacturing a DNA sample

from a DNA profile on a DNA database without requiring “any tissue from [the person the DNA

profile represents].” For those reasons, it can be said that ironically, in a sense, DNA databases

creates more opportunities for people to commit a crime and get away with it, opposing to their

original purpose to solve crimes.

Lastly, there are many procedures involved in the use of DNA technology in forensic

science. To demonstrate, it is common that the collected DNA sample has to go through the

process of PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction) before it is able to be used in DNA fingerprinting

to verify the presence of a suspect at the crime scene. All the mentioned processes are full of

complications such as “DNA contamination, the interpretation of partial or mixed profiles, trace

analysis and the transfer of DNA” and “extreme care is required to avoid miscarriages of justice”

(McCartney & Amankwaa, 2017). Even more, the investigation can be misguided and made

more complex when human chimeras are associated with the investigation. Human chimeras are

“people [who] have two different sets of DNA in different parts of the body” (“Chimeras,
Mosaics,” n.d.). To illustrate this, a human chimera can have unmatching DNA in his blood and

his hair (“Chimeras, Mosaics,” n.d.). In a crime situation, the human chimera can leave behind a

hair strand, but once his blood is collected as a suspect’s DNA sample, the DNA sample from the

crime scene (hair strand) and the DNA sample collected (blood) might not match (“Chimeras,

Mosaics,” n.d.). However, once a new DNA sample is taken from a different part of the suspect’s

body, it might be a match with the DNA sample from the crime scene (“Chimeras, Mosaics,”

n.d.). According to Rettner (2016), the second set of DNA of chimeras can come from their

bone-marrow donors and children (for women), those people can be dragged into the crime the

chimeras committed because of the set of DNA they shared. In brief, the complexity and

sensitivity of DNA technology are one of its most troublesome limitations.

To conclude, research has justified that DNA databases are indeed practical in crime

solving, but only to some extent. Although DNA databases can do damages to societies, they

have never had a severe harm to societies yet. That is to say, for the time being, the use of DNA

databases in forensic science equally benefits and poses risks of hurting societies. The first

approach to improve the application of DNA databases to solve crimes is to ensure that the

security measures taken to prevent the leak of DNA profiles are immensely strong. In addition,

difficulties that forensic scientists are facing, like DNA contamination, will undoubtedly be

figured out soon, considering the rapid pace innovations are advancing in.

Citation

A Brief History of Forensic Investigation. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://www.universalclass.com/articles/law/history-of-forensic-investigation.htm

Chimeras, Mosaics, and Other Fun Stuff. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask23
Cold Case [Def. 1]. (n.d.). In Merriam Webster Online, Retrieved October 8, 2018, from

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cold%20case

DNA Database Leads to Lower Crime. (2016, August 29). Retrieved from

https://www.rainn.org/news/dna-database-leads-lower-crime

DNA Profiling. (2005, December 1). Retrieved from

https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1980-dna-profiling

Flynn, M. (2018, May 21). A genealogy website helps crack another cold case, police say, this

one a 1987 double homicide. Retrieved from

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/05/21/a-genealogy-

website-used-to-crack-another-cold-case-police-say-this-one-a-1987-double-

homicide/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ef3f6d0e8190

Harris, W. (2001, January 18). How DNA Evidence Works. Retrieved from

https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/dna-evidence6.htm

Lombardo, C. (n.d.). 11 Significant DNA Database Pros and Cons. Retrieved from

https://vittana.org/11-significant-dna-database-pros-and-cons

Lussenhop, J. (2018, April 29). Golden State Killer: The end of a 40-year hunt? Retrieved from

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43915187

McCartney, C., & Amankwaa, A. O. (2017, October 11). DNA databases: it’s still far from clear

how effective they are in fighting crime. Retrieved from

https://theconversation.com/dna-databases-its-still-far-from-clear-how-effective-they-are-

in-fighting-crime-85137

McGrath, C. (2018, June 6). MyHeritage HACKED: 92 million users have data stolen in huge

breach. Retrieved from

 https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/970150/myheritage-dna-hacked-hacking-

cybersecurity-breach-dna-geneaology-website-passwords

Rettner, R. (2016, August 8). 3 Human Chimeras That Already Exist. Retrieved from

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/

Snow, K. (2018, July 18). 'This is just the beginning': Using DNA and genealogy to crack

years-old cold cases. Retrieved from

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/just-beginning-using-dna-genealogy-crack-

years-old-cold-cases-n892126

What is the DNA database? (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourgenes/whydoscientistsstu

dygenes/whatisdnaprofiling/whatisthednadatabase