Scientist Calls For World DNA Database
By Alok Jha - Science Correspondent - The Guardian - UK - 11
April 2005
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
|
