- Everyone in the world should have their genetic profile
stored on a database, but the information should be held independently
of the authorities, according to the pioneer of DNA fingerprinting.
-
- Current practice means that only the DNA of criminals
is stored in most countries and the information is held by government agencies.
-
- At a lecture on Saturday to mark the 20th anniversary
of the discovery of DNA fingerprinting, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, of
Leicester University, said a global DNA database would have been invaluable
in attempting to identify victims of the recent tsunami. Instead, investigators
faced endless searches through incomplete records, or having to cause further
distress to relatives of the victims.
-
- Article continues Prof Jeffreys criticised the current
version of the UK criminal DNA database and expressed concern about new
laws that allow the authorities to add people who have not been convicted
of any crime.
-
- "Having your DNA profile on a database makes sense
to you as an individual," he told his audience. "If any of you
had been in Thailand or Indonesia on holiday and, heaven forbid, killed
by the tsunami, how would you have been identified? If your DNA profile
is on that database, you can look in there and immediately carry out the
identification. It is worth considering having your profile in the database."
-
- But he urged caution on who should be given access to
such information. Any new database should keep names and addresses separate
from DNA information, so that casual hackers could not get access to it.
In addition, the means by which authorities should gain access to the information
should be strictly controlled.
-
- Echoing remarks he made last year, the geneticist said
the criminal DNA database was not sophisticated enough to prevent false
positives. "The chances of two unrelated people matching is 1 in 10
trillion - that is not good enough."
-
- The criminal DNA database contains records of 2.7 million
UK citizens. Each record contains details of 10 specific sites (called
microsatellites) on the human genome. Last year, Prof Jeffreys urged the
police to increase the number of markers they recorded to at least 15 to
head off problems.
-
- He said new laws affecting decisions on whose DNA information
was entered into the criminal database also concerned him. Previously only
people convicted of a recordable offence went on the database. Now, "if
you are taken to a police station in the context of a police investigation,
the police have a right to demand a DNA test from you, and that profile
will go on the database and stay there. That is a potentially serious infringement
of civil liberties."
-
- "Another area the police are interested in is rummaging
around in DNA variation that tells you about the physical appearance of
a person - ethnic origin, hair colour, eye colour, stature, facial appearance,"
he said. "I regard that as a massive infringement of genetic privacy."
-
- On a more positive note, he described how making DNA
fingerprints would become easier and cheaper. "There's a great deal
of talk about a lab on a chip," he said. "People are now looking
at ... miniaturising the whole process."
-
- Speeding up DNA fingerprinting would lead to many new
applications, not least in security. Instead of typing in a credit card
pin number at the supermarket, people might just give a DNA sample. Spitting
on a DNA testing chip at the checkout, he joked, might be the way people
pay for their groceries in future.
-
- Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited
2005
-
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,1456702,00.html
|
