1

Torsten Heinemann
Faculty of Social Sciences, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Address:
Robert-Mayer-Strasse 5, 60325 Frankfurt am Main; Email: heinemann@soz.uni-
frankfurt.de; phone +49 (0)69 798 22527

Thomas Lemke
Faculty of Social Sciences, Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany

Barbara Prainsack
Department of Sociology and Communications, Brunel University, United Kingdom

This is not the final manuscript – it is an Author's Accepted Manuscript of an article

published in New Genetics & Society [copyright Taylor & Francis], available online
at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14636778.2012.687132 [DOI
10.1080/14636778.2012.687132]

Full citation: Torsten Heinemann, Thomas Lemke, and Barbara Prainsack (2012), Risky
Profiles: Societal dimensions of forensic uses of DNA technologies. New Genetics &
Society 31/3: 249-258.

EDITORIAL
Risky profiles: Societal dimensions of forensic uses of DNA profiling technologies

Abstract (up to 150 words)

This editorial opens with a brief overview of social science and STS work on the use of
forensic DNA technologies and DNA evidence. We argue that social science and STS
scholars have made a valuable contribution to destabilizing and deconstructing the image
of DNA technologies as infallible producers of scientific truth. However, there are some
aspects of forensic DNA practices and technologies which have not yet seen the same
level of critical scrutiny from social science scholars. The second part of the editorial
discusses the contributions to this Special Issue, and considers how they address some of
the gaps in social science and STS research identified.

Key words: DNA profiling, forensic genetics, DNA databasing

Word count: 4782 (including abstract, references, and endnotes)

 2

Introduction
DNA profiling technologies have had a considerable impact on how forensic science and
criminal investigation have been understood, carried out, and regulated in the last 25
years. DNA testing is typically presented – not only in the public, but also in the legal
domain – as an almost failsafe way to identify individuals and to match traces found at
crime scenes with a suspect’s profile. In the light of the capacity for truth-creating
attributed to forensic DNA technologies, they have become crucial elements of national
systems of criminal prosecution and criminal justice. In addition, as a result of growing
transnational mobility and the global use of information and communication
technologies, crime and crime prevention issues are increasingly being addressed by
agencies and policy actors beyond the nation state. In the European context, the so-called
Prüm regime obliges law enforcement authorities in all EU countries to render their
forensic DNA databases searchable for other member states (on a match/no match basis).
Member states which do not yet have centralized forensic DNA databases are legally
obliged to establish them in the near future (Prainsack and Toom 2010, McCartney et al.
2011). In sum, the importance of forensic DNA databasing will continue to increase in
the political and public arenas across Europe.

The focus of the existing literature on DNA profiling and databasing from social-
scientific and socio-legal studies perspectives has so far been mainly focused on the
situation in the UK and the US (for exceptions, see the contributions in Hindmarsh and
Prainsack 2010, Machado and Prainsack 2012). American STS scholars Sheila Jasanoff
and Michael Lynch were among those who pioneered the field by putting practices and
institutions at the interface of law and forensic science on the agenda of social science
and Science and Technology (STS) research (see, for example, Jasanoff 1998, 2004,
2006, Lynch 2003, 2004). Simon Cole’s seminal work on the history of criminal
identification techniques and technologies provided the first social science account of the
emergence and practice of the ‘science’ of fingerprinting (Cole 2001). At the same time,
Cole started to open the black box of forensic identification practices and technologies
more widely. He was also part of the team of four authors who examined, among other
 3

things, the shift from fingerprinting to DNA analysis as the ‘gold standard’ in forensic
science (Lynch et al. 2008). These authors speak of an ‘inversion of credibility’ (Lynch et
al. 2008, p. 302) that has taken place, with traditional fingerprinting giving way to DNA
analysis as the forensic technology that is widely seen as the most reliable and robust,
and, in the eyes of many stakeholder groups, even as infallible.

Pertaining to the era of DNA, and focusing on the situation in the UK specifically,
sociologist Robin Williams and human geographer Paul Johnson (William and Johnson
2008) employed a socio-historical perspective in their analysis of the development and
use of the UK’s National DNA Database (NDNAD). With regard to the US, where social
science and STS research have, overall, focused less on forensic databases and more on
the production of expertise and evidence in court, Jay Aronson (2007) provided a
historical account of the early practices, the scientific and legal controversies, and the
ultimately successful acceptance of forensic DNA evidence in court.

Another particularity of social science and STS research in this domain is that it has so
far mostly concentrated its gaze on “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, and/or because they were prominently featured in the media (or all of these
reasons together). The edited volume Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic
DNA Profiling and Databasing, edited by political scientists Richard Hindmarsh and
Barbara Prainsack (2010), continues this trend. 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. Genetic Suspects comprises contributions from academics
and practitioners in different disciplines and regions of the world discussing the history,
regulation, practical workings of, and public discourse on national DNA databases for
forensic and police purposes, highlighting similarities, but also important differences,
between individual countries. Also from a comparative perspective, Sheldon Krimsky
 4

and Tania Simoncelli’s book Genetic Justice: DNA Banks, Criminal Investigations, and
Civil Liberties (2011) discusses the establishment of forensic DNA databases in the UK,
Japan, Australia, and Italy. Their focus is not so much on the practices and regulations
pertaining to forensic DNA databases, and public debates surrounding them, but instead
on civil rights and liberties, as well as ethical concerns. Socio-legal perspectives are also
offered by Kobilinsky et al. 2004, Semikhodskii 2007, and by the edited volume
convened by David Lazer (2004). The latter volume covers a wide range of topics from
the importance of meaning and context of DNA at a crime scene to its use in post-
conviction examinations, as well as the social, legal and ethical issues associated with
DNA databases, and it is one of the most widely cited works on the topic of legal and
ethical perspectives on forensic DNA databases. Social science perspectives are
represented in Lazer’s edited collection, but they are less pronounced than legal studies
dimensions and ethical considerations. A very instructive and empirically rich account of
the social and legal issues at stake is offered in Carole McCartney’s book on Forensic
Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science, Justice and Risk (2006);
McCartney uses excerpts from interviews with representatives of the British criminal
justice system to discuss how DNA technologies are used in professional practice.

In sum, social science (including STS and socio-legal studies) scholars have been able to
make significant contributions to refining our understanding of the interplay of law,
technology, and society. While the aforementioned works take a ‘big picture’ approach to
ethical, legal, and societal dimensions of forensic DNA technologies, or DNA databasing
specifically, there are a number of singular aspects which social science and STS scholars
have addressed. The topic of ethnicity and ‘race’ is one such area. In particular, the work
of Troy Duster (2004, 2006a, 2006b, 2008) has made a significant contribution to the
scholarly as well as public debate. Duster has helped to render visible the social and
political meanings present in scientific and operational categories and classifications used
in forensic science and criminal investigation, and to highlight power structures in this
field, in particular those affecting ‘ethnic’ minorities. More recently, interest in aspects of
‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ at the interface of law, science and society has grown, perhaps also
due to increasing media coverage of racial profiling and racial biases in the criminal
 5

justice system, many of which are summarized in Harriet Washington’s (2010) chapter
on ‘racial aspects of US DNA forensics’. The work of the Dutch STS scholar Amade
M’Charek (2008a, 2008b, see also M’Charek et al. 2011) has also been particularly
helpful in deconstructing the claim inherent in forensic genetics that ‘race’ can be
objectified and emptied of its political and social meaning.

However, there are other aspects of forensic DNA practices and technologies which have
not yet seen the same level of critical scrutiny from social science scholars. In these
areas, the scope and direction of research is mostly restrained by the tacit acceptance of
the very categories of law enforcement agencies. One example is the notion of the
convict. Social science work in this field rarely treats convicts as stakeholders or
problematizes the term. Some accounts even equate convicts with actual offenders,
thereby accepting several truth claims inherent in legal systems: that all convicted people
are guilty; that the expertise of convicts pertaining to the science and technology used in
legal processes is to be subordinated to, or to be ignored at the cost of, the expertise of
other experts; and that such expertise on the side of convicts is not to be recognized as
professional expertise (Prainsack 2012). Criminologist Richard Leo (2005, p. 213, see
also Lofquist 2001) points to a similar problem related to the otherwise very laudable
attention that social scientists have paid to the issue of wrongful convictions. Boosted
also by the Innocence Project, a US-based initiative of defense lawyers and others who
work pro bono to free the wrongfully convicted (for more details, see Machado and
Prainsack, 2012, chapter 8), an increasing number of social scientists have started to look
into the reasons for wrongful convictions, and shed light on their social and political
determinants. However, only a few (e.g. Harmon, 2001a, 2001b) have (as Leo [2005]
points out) challenged the definition and category of the actors themselves. Leo speaks of
an ‘unexamined assumption’ underlying much social science work. Scholars need, he
argues, ‘to move beyond the legal categories and concepts handed to them by journalists
and lawyers [… and] do more than descriptive case studies that recirculate the same
essential ideas’ (Leo 2005, p. 215).
 6

Another topic that has arguably not yet received much attention from STS and social
science scholars is the use of forensic technologies in criminal investigations (and the
process leading up to it). Although there is an impressive body of literature on the use of
DNA evidence in court (e.g. Aronson 2007, Lynch et al. 2008, Scheffer 2009), there are
few empirical studies exploring how forensic technologies are employed ‘in the field’.
The area of phenotypic profiling is a case in point. Although a small number of
publications address the likely societal effects (M’Charek 2008a, 2008b, M’Charek et al.
2011) or discussing ethical and regulatory concerns pertaining to phenotypic profiling in
forensics and in criminal investigation (Koops and Schellekens 2008, Kayser and
Schneider 2009), there are no fine-grained studies of how phenotypic profiling is being
used by law enforcement agencies in different countries. Among the rare exceptions are
the works of some of the authors contributing to this volume, as well as Rees (2011).

DNA profiling technologies are not only used in criminal investigations and criminal
justice, but also in immigration contexts. Since the 1990s, many countries around the
world have begun to use DNA testing to establish biological relatedness in family
reunification cases. Although media coverage of the issue is quite extensive (e.g. Funk
2007, 2009, Gaserow 2007, Swarns 2007, Martin 2011), research and scientific
publications in this field are rare. So far, the topic has only stirred interest among legal
scholars and in the human rights literature (Taitz et al. 2002a, 2002b, Frenz 2008,
Murdoch 2008). Social science scholars have mostly focused on the use of parental
testing and its implications for family relations, parenthood, and gender aspects (e.g.
Richards 2010, Fonseca 2011, Turner 2011) within one country. The impact of forensic
genetics on immigration policies and family reunification still remains a non-issue for
most social scientists. DNA profiling in immigration contexts certainly offers some
advantages over traditional methods of identification. It allows applicants for family
reunification to prove their family status even if they do not posses any official
documents (e.g. certificates of birth and marriage). It might also be considered an
effective instrument to control immigration, to prevent child trafficking and to limit
fraudulent family reunification. However, the use of parental testing in immigration
contexts also raises serious concerns that are yet to be studied, as initial research shows
 7

(Heinemann and Lemke 2012). The general legal and social double standard which treats
native citizens and immigrants differently is even worse with regards to the handling of
genetic data, data protection and the underlying concept of the family in family and
immigration law. Additionally, there is a tendency to criminalize migrants (Aas 2006,
2011). For example, in some EU countries migrants’ DNA profiles are routinely stored in
forensic DNA databases, together with profiles taken from suspects or those convicted of
criminal offenses, even though the migrants’ own samples were not taken in the context
of a criminal investigation. These findings are just a starting point, and further research
on the use of forensic genetics in immigration contexts is needed to investigate the
different problems that arise.

This Special Issue seeks to make a contribution to opening some of these black boxes. It
points to so far neglected areas of research, and identifies new perspectives on forensic
technologies by social scientists.

Contributions to this Special Issue

Despite their importance in criminal investigations and prosecution, many practitioners
and scientists without training in forensic genetics still feel that they do not fully
‘understand’ DNA profiling technologies (see, for example, Dahl 2010). Antonio
Amorim’s contribution opens this Special Issue with an introduction to forensic genetics
from the perspective of a molecular biologist seeking to intensify the dialogue with social
scientists. After a historical introduction to genetics and its use in modern forensics,
Amorim argues that while classical forensic technologies rely on the idea of discernible
uniqueness, forensic genetic technologies are concerned with types of observation. Thus,
forensic genetics produces “facts” based on the comparison of the probabilities for a
given observation under different, mutually exclusive hypotheses, which he emphasizes
sets genetic technologies apart from other forensic technologies. Amorim’s chapter will
hopefully indeed help to foster an intensified exchange between forensic scientists and
social scientists that would in turn enhance the quality of science, regulation, and the
ethical debate in this field.
 8

Helena Machado’s chapter offers fascinating insights in a so far underexplored field of

research. Her study engages with the cultural imaginary that presents DNA profiles as
infallible evidence. While much scholarly literature is devoted to questions of how media
representations of the uses of forensic identification technologies influence the general
public or jurors, judges and police investigators, the so-called CSI effect (for a critical
discussion of this concept see, for example, Cole and Dioso-Villa 2007, 2009), prisoners’
views of forensic and police use of DNA analysis have until recently (Prainsack and
Kitzberger 2009, Machado and Prainsack 2012) not been a research topic at all.
Machado’s empirical study is based on qualitative interviews with prison inmates in
Portugal and complicates the picture of the so-called CSI effect. Machado shows that
prisoners’ narratives display a mixture of three different kinds of effects: the “moral
authority effect” that reaffirms and consolidates the moral authority of the police seen as
using the most advanced technology available for identification work; the “(credible)
distortion of reality effect” that creates unrealistic and exaggerated expectations regarding
forensic investigations; and the “educational effect” that considers the ways in which the
television program is used to educate and inform the larger public on the one hand and
the (potential) criminals on the other. Machado’s study shows that the prison inmates
adopted a critical and reflexive stance towards the forensic use of DNA analysis that is
shaped by their (negative) experiences of the Portuguese criminal justice system and their
biographical trajectories. The article contributes to a more contextualized and culturally
informed account of the workings of “tracing technologies” (Machado and Prainsack
2012).

Dana Wilson-Kovacs, David Wyatt, and Christine Hauskeller further investigate the
“forensic imaginary” (Williams 2010, p. 135) that renders DNA analysis the provider of
irrefutable evidence. Like Machado, they incorporate the perspectives of so far
underrepresented groups in social science research on forensic technologies, and explore
how they make sense of DNA analysis and forensic DNA databases: in this case, the
underrepresented groups are “ordinary people”. Their contribution discusses the results of
a Mass Observation (MO) of the British public on “Genes, Genetics and Cloning” which
was carried out in 2006. (Since 1937, MO surveys have been conducted regularly in
 9

Britain to collect information about the views and lives of “ordinary people”. They were
abolished in the mid-1960s and reinstated in 1981.) One important finding pertaining to
the results of the MO in 2006 was that most of the respondents regarded the use of DNA
in forensics and criminal investigation “as the least controversial and most beneficial of
the different genetic applications” (p.?). However, many respondents also expressed
concern about possible overvaluation of DNA evidence in criminal investigations and in
court, and some also cautioned against the establishment of a universal DNA database
that includes the DNA profiles of all citizens. Like Machado, Wilson-Kovacs et al.
demonstrate that cultural resources and personal experiences shape the understanding of
forensic DNA analysis and its possible achievements and pitfalls.

In a similar vein, Corinna Kruse’s contribution emphasizes the importance of “legal

storytelling” in criminal investigations. Kruse challenges the view that DNA evidence in
criminal investigations and in court is self-evident and unproblematic. Basing her
argument on ethnographic fieldwork and interviews with forensic scientists, crime scene
officers, police detectives, and prosecutors in Sweden, she argues compellingly that the
presentation of DNA evidence in court is preceded by a process of transforming
laboratory results into cultural narratives. It is this process of transformation that renders
DNA evidence legally meaningful. Kruse convincingly demonstrates that legal
storytelling is also an issue during pre-trial investigation. The empirical material she
presents illustrates how during pre-trial investigation, multiple possible stories are
assessed and evaluated to make connections between different pieces of evidence and
how these interpretations draw on the same scripts and legal categories that are mobilized
and used later in the trial. Kruse’s article not only argues that it is necessary to expand the
social science perspective on legal storytelling to pre-trial investigations, but also shows
that no forensic evidence – not even DNA evidence – can be assessed without an
interpretive framework that transforms it into a legally meaningful narrative. Finally,
Kruse reminds us that for a social science account of DNA analysis, it is not sufficient to
conceive of the gene as a “cultural icon” (Nelkin and Lindee 1995). We also have to take
into account a complementary perspective that points to the other side of this
 10

bidirectional dynamics: how DNA evidence is mobilized and interpreted within already
existing cultural narratives and established legal categories.

Until recently, there have rarely been any comparative analyses in social studies of
forensic technologies. Victor Toom’s article makes an important contribution to filling
this gap. His article systematically compares the governance structures and organizational
regimes of two national forensic DNA databases, the National DNA Databank of
England & Wales (NDNAD) and the Dutch DNA database. Toom’s analysis elucidates
important similarities as well as differences in the structure and the workings of the
respective databases. Toom cautiously concludes that the Dutch DNA database is as
effective and efficient in terms of criminal investigation as its counterpart, but its
organizational structure and practices result in fewer infringements of individual rights
and legal principles. Hence, the analysis not only offers important insights into the
different trajectories and organizational patters of two national DNA databases but also
makes it possible to derive criteria for a “best practice” model that might inform and
improve the process of internationalization and Europeanization of DNA databases.

As our review of the existing literature in the field and the articles in this Special Issue
show, social science and STS scholars are making a valuable contribution to destabilizing
and deconstructing the image of DNA technologies as infallible producers of scientific
truth. However, more empirical studies of the role of science and technology in criminal
investigation and the use of forensic technologies in police practice are needed, as is
more conceptual work to tackle some of the “unexamined assumptions” (Leo 2005) that
guided research in this area until recently.

Acknowledgements:
The idea for this Special Issue was conceived at the conference “Risky profiles: Societal
dimensions of forensic uses of DNA analysis” which was organized by BP and TL and
held at the Goethe University in Frankfurt on 2-3 July 2010. We gratefully acknowledge
the support for the conference provided by the German Academic Exchange Service and
 11

the Association of Friends and Supporters (Vereinigung von Freunden und Förderern) of
the Goethe University Frankfurt. We would also like to express our appreciation to
Clancy Pegg at the Editorial Office of New Genetics of Societies for her invaluable help
and support during the entire process and Gerard Holden who copy-edited the text.

References

Aas, K.F. 2006. ‘The body does not lie’: Identity, risk and trust in technoculture. Crime
Media Culture 2(2), 143-58.
Aas, K.F. 2011. ‘Crimmigrant’ bodies and bona fide travelers: Surveillance, citizenship
and global governance. Theoretical Criminology 15(3), 331-46.
Aronson, J.D. 2007. Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of
DNA Profiling. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cole, S.A. 2001. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal
Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cole, S.A. and Dioso-Villa, R. 2007. CSI and its effects: media, juries, and the burden of
proof. New England Law Review 41, 435–70.
Cole, S.A., and Dioso-Villa, R. 2009. Investigating the ‘CSI effect’: media and litigation
crisis in criminal law. Stanford Law Review 61(6), 1335–73.
Dahl, J.Y. 2010. DNA the Nor-way: black-boxing the evidence and monopolising the
key. In: R. Hindmarsh and B. Prainsack, eds. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of
DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 197-
218.
Duster, T. 2004. Selective arrests, an ever-expanding DNA forensic database, and the
specter of an early-twenty-first-century equivalent of phrenology. In: D. Lazer, ed. The
Technology of Justice: DNA and the Criminal Justice System. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press, 315–34.
Duster, T. 2006a. Explaining differential trust of DNA forensic technology: grounded
assessment or inexplicable paranoia? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 293–
300.
Duster, T. 2006b. The molecular reinscription of race: Unanticipated issues in
biotechnology and forensic science. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(4–5), 427–41.
Duster, T. 2008. DNA dragnets and race: larger social context, history and future.
GeneWatch, 21(3–4), 3–5.
Fonseca, C. (2011) Law, Technology, and Gender Relations: Following the Path of DNA
Paternity Tests in Brazil. In: C.H. Browner and C.F. Sargent, eds. Reproduction,
Globalization, and the State: New Theoretical and Ethnographic Perspectives.
Durham and London: Duke University Press, 138-153.
Funk, V. (2007) Ausländerbehörden setzen auf Gentests: Tausende Zuwanderer lassen
fürs Amt ihre DNA analysieren – eine gesetzliche Grundlage dafür gibt es nicht.
Frankfurter Rundschau 12.11.2007, 6.
 12

Funk, V. (2009) DNA-Test für Flüchtlinge. Frankfurter Rundschau http://www.fr-

online.de/home/dna-test-fuer-fluechtlinge/-/1472778/3347042/-/index.html [Accessed
12 February 2012].
Gaserow, V. (2007) Grenzen dicht für Birmaner: Anwälte: Zwang zum Gentest bei
Familiennachzug ist unüberwindbare Hürde. Frankfurter Rundschau 22.10.2007: 8.
Harmon, T. 2001a. Guilty until proven innocent: an analysis of post-Furman capital
errors. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(2), 113–39.
Harmon, T. 2001b. Predictors of miscarriages of justice in capital cases. Justice
Quarterly, 18, 949–68.
Heinemann, T. and Lemke, T. 2012. Suspect families: DNA kinship testing in German
immigration policies. Manuscript under review.
Hindmarsh, R. and Prainsack, B., eds., 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of
DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Jasanoff, S. 1998. The eye of everyman: witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial. Social
Studies of Science, 28(5–6), 713–40.
Jasanoff, S. 2004. DNA’s identity crisis. In: D. Lazer, ed. DNA and the Criminal Justice
System: The Technology of Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 337–55.
Jasanoff, S. 2006. Just evidence: the limits of science in the legal process. Journal of
Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 328–41.
Kayser, M., and Schneider, P.M. 2009. DNA-based prediction of human externally
visible characteristics in forensics: Motivations, scientific challenges, and ethical
considerations. Forensic Science International: Genetics 3(3), 154-161.
Kobilinsky, L., Liotti, T.F. and Oeser-Sweat, J. 2004. DNA: Forensic and Legal
Applications. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Koops, B.J., and Schellekens, M. 2008. Forensic DNA phenotyping: Regulatory issues.
Columbia Science and Technology Law Review 9, 158-202.
Krimsky, S. and Simoncelli, T. 2011. Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal
Investigations, and Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lazer, D., ed., 2004. The Technology of Justice: DNA and the Criminal Justice System.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lee, H. and Tirnady, F. 2004. Blood Evidence: How DNA is Revolutionizing the Way We
Solve Crimes. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
Leo, R. 2005. Rethinking the study of miscarriages of justice: developing a criminology
of wrongful conviction. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 201–23.
Lofquist, W. 2001. Whodunit? An examination of the production of wrongful
convictions. In: S. Westervelt and J. Humphrey, eds. Wrongly Convicted: Perspectives
on Failed Justice. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 174–98.
Lynch, M. 2003. God’s signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic
science. Endeavour, 27(2), 93–7.
Lynch, M. 2004. ‘Science above all else’: the inversion of credibility between forensic
DNA profiling and fingerprint evidence. In: G. Edmond, ed. Expertise in Regulation
and Law. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 121–35.
Lynch, M. et al. 2008. Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
M’Charek, A. 2008a. Contrasts and comparisons: three practices of forensic
investigation. Comparative Sociology, 7, 387–412.
 13

M’Charek, A. 2008b. Silent witness, articulate collective: DNA evidence and the
inference of visible traits. Bioethics 22(9), 519-528.
M’Charek, A., Toom, V., and Prainsack, B. 2011. Bracketing off populations does not
advance ethical reflection on EVCs: a reply to Kayser and Schneider. Forensic
Science International: Genetics, DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2010.12.012.
Machado, H., and Prainsack, B. 2012. Tracing Technologies: Prisoners’ Views in the Era
of CSI. London: Ashgate.
Martin, R. 2011. Tax agency: DNA-test no proof of paternity. The Local
http://www.thelocal.se/33698/20110510/ [Accessed 16 February 2012].
McCartney, C., Wilson, T.J., and Williams, R. 2011. Transnational exchange of forensic
DNA: viability, legitimacy, and acceptability. European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research 17, 305-322.
McCartney, C. 2006. Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice: Forensic Science,
Justice and Risk. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.
Murdock, T.R. 2008. Whose Child Is This? Genetic Analysis and Family Reunification
Immigration in France. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 41(5), 1503-1534.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S.M. 1995. The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New
York: WH Freeman and Company.
Prainsack, B. 2012. Unchaining research: towards an emancipatory approach to the study
of legal processes in criminal law. Manuscript prepared for submission to: M.
Pickersgill and E. Cloatre, eds. Law, Science and Society: The Making of Knowledge,
Technology, and Socio-Legal Order. London: Routledge. Work in progress.
Prainsack, B. and Kitzberger, M. 2009. DNA behind bars: other ways of knowing
forensic DNA technologies. Social Studies of Science, 39(1), 51–79.
Prainsack, B. and Toom, V. 2010. The Prüm regime: Situated dis/empowerment in
transnational DNA profile exchange. British Journal of Criminology 50, 1117-1135.
Rees, G. 2010. ‘It’s not for me to say whether consent was given or not’: forensic
medical examiners’ construction of ‘neutral reports’ in rape cases. Social and Legal
Studies 19/3, 371-386.
Richards, M. 2010. DNA Paternity Testing, Parentage and Kinship. Reflections on Some
Tendencies in the UK and in the USA. L’Homme 21(2), 101-5.
Semikhodskii, A. 2007. Dealing with DNA Evidence: A Legal Guide. London and New
York: Routledge-Cavendish.
Spencer, C. 2003. Genetic Testimony: A Guide to Forensic DNA Profiling. San
Francisco, CA: Benjamin Cummings Publishing Company.
Swarns, R.L. 2007. DNA Tests Offer Immigrants Hope or Despair The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/us/10dna.html [Accessed 16 February 2012].
Taitz, J., Weekers, J.E.M. and Mosca, D.T. 2002a. DNA and immigration: the ethical
ramifications. The Lancet 359(9308), 794.
Taitz, J., Weekers, J.E.M and Mosca, D.T. (2002b) The Last Resort: Exploring the Use of
DNA Testing for Family Reunification. Health and Human Rights 6(1), 20-32
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4065312.
Turner, L. 2011. The Denial of Paternity: Pregnancy as a Risk to the ‘Pure Relationship’.
Sociology, 45(6), 1110-1125.
 14

Washington, H. 2010. Base assumptions? Racial aspects of US DNA forensics. In: R.

Hindmarsh and B. Prainsack, eds. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of DNA
Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 63–84.
Williams, R. and Johnson, P. 2008. Genetic Policing: The Use of DNA in Criminal
Investigations. Cullompton, Devon: Willan Publishing.