From victim to suspect: an ethical perspective on DNA data sharing
The depiction of crime in movies and TV shows assigns a singularly simple and efficient role to DNA evidence: it helps the police put criminals behind bars and frees innocent citizens from suspicion by infallibly producing reliable matches from a database. The reality, as often, is a lot more complex. The use of forensic genetics in law enforcement has far-reaching ethical implications due to the nature of DNA data and the way this data is collected, exchanged and analysed. The EXCHANGE (Forensic Geneticists and the Transnational Exchange of DNA data in the EU: Engaging Science with Social Control, Citizenship and Democracy) research project studied how these uses could effectively drive genetic surveillance – the systematic monitoring of individuals or groups based on their genetic specificities in order to detect or reconstruct crimes. The project delivered tools and data to improve our understanding of these mechanisms, and outlined concrete solutions for addressing the challenges to democratic societies they create.
Opt-in consent
The starting point for the EXCHANGE project, which received funding from the European Research Council, is the so-called Prüm framework. The technological system enables the automated exchange of DNA profiles between EU countries. These exchanges raise questions with regard to privacy, equality before justice and the presumption of innocence, explains Helena Machado, dean of the Institute of Social Sciences, University of Minho in Portugal and principal investigator of the EXCHANGE project. “The transnational exchange of DNA is not only concerned with data related to potential criminals such as convicted persons, suspects, and crime stains, but also includes data associated with civil identification purposes – missing persons, their relatives, or unidentified remains,” she says. “The inclusion of victims in criminal DNA databases can generate matches with other unsolved crimes, in which case the victim becomes a suspect. Therefore, victims who are alive, like other volunteers, should be informed and asked to give their consent.” Another issue is related to the differences between EU countries in the way data is collected, categorised and shared. For instance, data on convicted offenders will cover very different realities in different countries: “While Germany also stores and exchanges DNA data on offenders convicted for crimes such as burglary, Portugal only exchanges data on offenders convicted for more serious crimes such as homicide and robbery with violence.”
CSI effect
In addition to these concerns, efforts to clarify the role and limitations of DNA evidence are hampered by its depiction in the media. “Members of the criminal justice system, and the general public, confuse the idealised portrayal of DNA evidence on television with the actual capabilities of forensic genetics,” Machado points out. “This so-called ‘CSI effect’, together with a lack of literacy on what is involved in the interpretation of DNA evidence, is considered by many forensic geneticists to be the major obstacle in their task of communicating on the results of DNA analysis.” Objectively assessing the success and efficiency of the Prüm system is made difficult by a lack of transparency, she notes. While the transnational exchanges under the Prüm framework are generally regarded as instrumental to solving crimes in the EU, the lack of publicly accessible information makes it difficult to assess these claims. To achieve greater accountability, the project team suggests developing oversight bodies which actively engage with citizens and other stakeholders outside the forensic arena. They also call for an ethically informed debate addressing the reliability, utility and legitimacy of the system.
Keywords
EXCHANGE, DNA, Prüm framework, transnational exchange, crime, genetic surveillance, privacy, presumption of innocence