Abstract
Forensic genomics now enables law enforcement agencies to undertake rapid and detailed analysis of suspect samples using a technique known as massively parallel sequencing (MPS), including information such as physical traits, biological ancestry, and medical conditions. This article discusses the implications of MPS and provides ethical analysis, drawing on the concept of joint rights applicable to genomic data, and the concept of collective moral responsibility (understood as joint moral responsibility) that are applicable to law enforcement investigations that utilize genomic data. The widespread and unconstrained use of this technology without appropriate legal protections of individual moral rights and associated accountability mechanisms, could potentially not only involve violations of individual moral rights but also lead to an unacceptable shift in the balance of power between governments and the citizenry. We argue that in light of the rights of victims and the security benefits for society, there is a collective moral responsibility for individuals to submit their DNA to law enforcement and for MPS to be used where other, less invasive techniques are not effective. However, this application should be limited by legislation, including that any data obtained should be directly relevant to the investigation and should be destroyed at the conclusion of the investigation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Notes
Nuclear DNA is inherited from all ancestors whereas mitochondrial DNA is only inherited from a single (maternal) lineage.
For instance, the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) explicitly regulated DNA phenotyping in November 2019.
On the other hand, there is the potential collateral damage to the relatives of criminals, given partially overlapping DNA profiles.
This consent issue adds to other problems that can be raised in relation to direct-to-consumer genetic testing, such as the accuracy of the tests; and in cases where they relate to medical conditions, the fact that the results are not provided in a clinical setting by a healthcare professional to provide the individual with individualized advice on management.
References
Amorim, A., T. Fernandes, and N. Taveira, 2019. Mitochondrial DNA in human identification: A review. PeerJ: e7314.
Australian Federal Police (AFP). 2021. Advanced technology allows AFP to predict criminal profiles from DNA. https://www.afp.gov.au/news-media/media-releases/advanced-technology-allows-afp-predict-criminal-profiles-dna. Accessed May 9 2023.
Butler, J., and S. Willis. 2020. Interpol review of forensic biology and forensic DNA typing 2016-2019. Forensic Science International: Synergy 2: 352–367.
Claussnitzer, M., J. Cho, and R. Collins, et al. 2020. A brief history of human disease genetics. Nature 577: 179–189.
Dias, R., and A. Torkamani. 2019. Artificial intelligence in clinical and genomic diagnostics. Genome Medicine 11: 1–12.
Innocence Project. 2023. DNA Exonerations in the United States. https://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/. Accessed May 9 2023.
Kleinig, J., P. Mameli, S. Miller, D. Salane, and A. Schwartz. 2011. Security and privacy: Global standards for ethical identity management in contemporary liberal democratic states. Canberra: ANU Press.
MacLean, C. 2014. Creating a wanted poster from a drop of blood: Using DNA phenotyping to generate an artist’s rendering of an offender based only on DNA shed at the crime scene. Hamline Law Review 36: 357–386.
Miller, S. 1999. Collective rights. Public Affairs Quarterly 1(4): 331–346.
Miller, S. 2021a. Joint rights: Human beings, corporations and animals. Journal of Applied Ethics and Philosophy 12: 1–7.
Miller, S. 2021b. Predictive policing: The ethical issues. In Future morality, edited by D. Edmonds, 73–81. New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, S., and M. Smith. 2021. Ethics, public health and technology responses to COVID-19. Bioethics 35: 366–371.
Miller, S., and M. Smith. 2022. Quasi universal forensic DNA databases. Criminal Justice Ethics 41: 238–256.
Perry, J. 1985. Personal identity. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Phillips, C. 2015. Forensic genetic analysis of bio-geographical ancestry. Forensic Science International Genetics 18: 49–65.
Ryan, L., M. Mathieson, and T. Dwyer et al. 2021. Massively parallel sequencing as an investigative tool. Australian Journal of Forensic Science 53: 626–639.
Santos, F., H. Machado, and S. Silva. 2013. Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance? Life Sciences, Society and Policy 9: 9–12.
Schneider, P., B. Prainsack, and M. Kayser. 2019. The use of forensic DNA phenotyping in predicting appearance and biogeographic ancestry. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International 116: 873–880.
Scudder, N., D. McNevin, and S. Kelty, et al. 2019. Massively parallel sequencing and the emergence of forensic genomics: Defining the policy and legal issues for law enforcement. Science & Justice 58: 153–158.
Smith, M., and G. Urbas. 2012. Regulating new forms of forensic DNA profiling under Australian legislation: Familial matching and DNA phenotyping. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences 44: 63–81.
Smith, M. 2016. DNA evidence in the Australian legal system. Sydney: LexisNexis.
Smith, M., M. Mann, and G. Urbas. 2018. Biometrics crime and security. Abingdon: Routledge.
Smith, M., and R. Heath Jeffery. 2020. Addressing the challenges of artificial intelligence in medicine. Internal Medicine Journal 50: 1278–1281.
Smith, M., and S. Miller. 2021. A principled approach to cross sector genomic data access. Bioethics 35: 779–786.
Tiihonen, J. 2015. Genetic background of extreme violent behaviour. Molecular Psychiatry 20: 786–792.
United Kingdom National DNA Database Ethics Group (UKNDNAD). 2017. Ethical dimensions of the application of next generation sequencing technologies to criminal investigations.
Vassos, E., D. Collier, and S. Fazel. 2014. Systematic meta-analyses and field synopsis of genetic association studies of violence and aggression. Molecular Psychiatry 19: 471–477.
Wickenheiser, R. 2019. Forensic genealogy, bioethics and the golden state killer case. Forensic Science International: Synergy 1: 114–125.
Funding
No funds, grants, or other support was received.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors contributed equally to this article.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The author(s) declare no competing interests.
Ethical Approval
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, M., Miller, S. The Evolution of Forensic Genomics: Regulating Massively Parallel Sequencing. Bioethical Inquiry (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10316-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-023-10316-w