National DNA database: Difference between revisions

A national DNA database is a government database of DNA profiles which can be used by law enforcement agencies to identify suspects of crimes.

The first government database (NDNAD) was set up by the United Kingdom in April 1995. The second one was set up in New Zealand. France set up the FNAEG in 1998. In the USA, the FBI has organized the CODIS database. Originally intended for sex offenders, they have since been extended to include almost any criminal offender.

In England and Wales, anyone arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence must submit a DNA sample, the profile of which is then stored on the DNA database as a permanent record. In Scotland, the law requires the DNA profiles of most people who are acquitted be removed from the database. In Sweden, only the DNA profiles of criminals who have spent more than two years in prison are stored. In Norway and Germany, court orders are required, and are only available, respectively, for serious offenders and for those convicted of certain offences and who are likely to reoffend. All 50 states in the USA store DNA profiles of violent offenders, and a few also store profiles of suspects. Portugal has plans to introduce a DNA database of its entire population

In Denmark the Danish Newborn Screening Biobank at Statens Serum Institut keeps a blood sample from people born after 1981. The purpose is to test for Phenylketonuria and other diseases . But it is also used for DNA tests to identify diseased and suspected criminals . Parents can request that the blood sample of their newborn is destroyed after the result of test is known.

Scope of databases

The United States maintains the largest DNA database in the world, with the Combined DNA Index System holding over 5 million records as of 2007. The United Kingdom maintains the National DNA Database (NDNAD), which is of similar size. The size of this database, and its rate of growth, is giving concern to civil liberties and political groups in the UK, where police have wide-ranging powers to take samples and retain them even in the event of acquittal.

When a match is made from a national DNA database to link a crime scene to an offender who has provided a DNA sample to a database that link is often referred to as a cold hit. A cold hit is of value in referring the police agency to a specific suspect but is of less evidential value than a DNA match made from outside the DNA database..

As of May 2007, 177,870 forensic profiles and 4,582,516 offender profiles have been accumulated, making it the largest DNA database in the world, surpassing the United Kingdom National DNA Database, which consisted of an estimated 3,976,090 profiles as of June 2007. As of the same date, CODIS has produced over 49,400 matches to requests, assisting in more than 50,343 investigations.

The growing public approval of DNA databases has seen the creation and expansion of many states' own DNA databases. California currently maintains the third largest DNA database in the world (naturally, as CODIS contains all states' database information). Political measures such as California Proposition 69 (2004), which increased the scope of the DNA database, have already met with a significant increase in numbers of investigations aided.

In order to decrease the number of irrelevant matches at NDIS, the Convicted Offender Index requires all 13 CODIS STRs to be present for a profile upload. Forensic profiles only require 10 of the STRs to be present for an upload.

DNA databases and medicine

The database became the common meeting ground for computer scientists and molecular biologists. This is because the goal of certain projects like the genome project was to construct maps, which were built from information contributed to databases. They enabled an entirely new way of information analysis. Many types of modern molecular biological analysis require computational analysis in parallel. However, the information gained from mapping and sequencing genetic information would very likely have ethical implications for individuals, families and society in general. There is a concern about genetic information being used in ways that affect chances of employment or chance of getting life insurance. Furthermore, secondary applications of personal, genetic information mean that citizens do not know what their genetic information will be used for.

DNA collection and human rights

In a judgement in December 2008, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police saying that retention "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".

The DNA fingerprinting pioneer Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys condemned UK government plans to keep the genetic details of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in England and Wales for up to 12 years. Jeffreys said he was "disappointed" with the proposals, which came after a European court ruled that the current policy breaches people's right to privacy.Jefferys said "It seems to be as about as minimal a response to the European court of human rights judgment as one could conceive. There is a presumption not of innocence but of future guilt here … which I find very disturbing indeed".

See also

• Combined DNA Index System (CODIS)
• DNA profiling
• Forensic Science Service
• Government databases
• LGC Forensics
• UK National DNA Database