Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T21:43:14.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

5 - Suspects, victims and others: producing and sharing forensic genetic knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 September 2014

Robin Williams
Affiliation:
Durham University
Matthias Wienroth
Affiliation:
Northumbria University
Mairi Levitt
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
Darren Shickle
Affiliation:
University of Leeds
Get access

Summary

Introduction

This chapter examines several related non-medical contexts in which genotyping is carried out and where questions arise over who has the right to commission, deploy and share with whom the results of that genotyping. There are three such contexts on which we focus attention. The first – and dominant one – is the application of genetic technologies to biological material recovered from crime scenes, from the victims of crime, from criminal suspects and from others for ‘elimination purposes’ in the course of criminal inquiries. The second is when genetic analysis is carried out on bodies recovered at ‘mass disasters’ in an effort to identify the dead. The third is the sampling and profiling of individuals involved in paternity and maternity disputes, or in other circumstances where it is deemed necessary to prove close genetic affiliation. We refer to all three of them as ‘forensic’ on the grounds that the primary purpose of each is to support legal process of various kinds, including the deliberations of civil, coronial, local, national and international criminal courts. Each genotyping knowledge context raises slightly different issues because of variations in the identities of the persons from whom samples are taken, the nature of the genetic information produced by preferred technologies, the primary purposes which its production serves and varying expectations of how much of this information should be shared with whom and under what circumstances.

A complicating factor is that close examination of some of these contexts suggests that the seemingly clear boundary between forensic genetic applications and the use of genetic knowledge within clinical medicine (or medical research) is often opaque in practice. This may be due to genetic inquiries crossing contexts of use (e.g., medical issues might be relevant for a criminal investigation or a paternity determination). It may be because medical information and genetic information have to be used in combination (e.g., to determine the robust identification of bodies), and it may also occur because some data generated by the application of particular genotyping methods are useful in both medical and non-medical contexts (e.g., analysis of ancestral lineage is relevant for biomedical research and for forensic identification).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know
Genetic Privacy and Responsibility
, pp. 70 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amorim, Antonio 2012. ‘Opening the DNA black box: Demythologizing forensic genetics’, New Genetics and Society 31(3): 259–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bostanci, Adam 2011. ‘Genetic ancestry testing as ethnic profiling’, Science as Culture 20(1): 107–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, Mildred K. and Sankar, Pamela 2004. ‘Forensic genetics and ethical, legal and social implications beyond the clinic’, Nature Genetics Supplement 36: S8–S12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chow-White, Peter A. and Duster, Troy 2011. ‘Do health and forensic DNA databases increase racial disparities?PLoS Medicine 8(10): e1001100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Douzinas, Costas 2002. ‘Identity, recognition, rights or what can Hegel teach us about human rights?Journal of Law and Society 29: 379–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duster, Troy 2003. Backdoor to Eugenics. 2nd edn, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai 2004. ‘DNA tests and databases in criminal justice. Individual rights and the common good’, in Lazer, David (ed.) DNA and the Criminal Justice System. The technology of justice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp. 197–224.Google Scholar
Genewatch UK 2005. The Police National DNA Database: Balancing crime detection, human rights and privacy. Available at: (accessed 2 April 2014).
Goffman, Erving 1968. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, Richard and Prainsack, Barbara 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Honneth, A. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The grammar of social conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. H. 2010. The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kayser, Manfred and Schneider, Peter M. 2009. ‘DNA-based prediction of human externally visible characteristics in forensics: Motivations, scientific challenges, and ethical considerations’, Forensic Science International: Genetics 3: 154–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lazer, David 2004. DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The technology of justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Mairi and Tomasini, F. 2006. ‘Bar-coded children: An exploration of issues around the inclusion of children on the England & Wales National DNA Database’, Genomics and Policy 2: 41–56.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R. and Jordan, K. 2008. Truth Machine: The contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M’charek, Amâde 2000. ‘Technologies of population: Forensic DNA testing practices and the making of differences and similarities’, Configurations 8(1): 121–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
M’charek, A., Toom, V. and Prainsack, B. 2012. ‘Bracketing off population does not advance ethical reflection on EVCs: A reply to Kayser and Schneider’, Forensic Science International: Genetics 6(1): e16–e17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, R. 1976. Hegel’s Phenomenology: A philosophical introduction. London: Sussex University Press.Google Scholar
Ossorio, Pilar and Duster, Troy 2005. ‘Race and genetics: Controversies in biomedical, behavioural and forensic sciences’, American Psychologist 60(1): 115–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pugliese, Joseph 2010. Biometrics: Bodies, technologies, biopolitics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ruiz, Y., Phillips, C., Gomez-Tato, A., Alvarez-Dios, J., de Cal, M. Scasares, Cruz, R., Maronas, O., Sochtig, J., Fondevila, M., Rodriguez-Cid, M. J., Carracedo, A. and Lareu, M. V. 2013. ‘Further development of forensic eye colour predictive tests’, Forensic Science International: Genetics 7(1): 28–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankar, Pamela 2010. ‘Forensic DNA phenotyping: Reinforcing race in law enforcement’, in Whitmarsh, Ian and Jones, David S. (eds.) What’s the Use of Race?Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 49–62.Google Scholar
Skinner, David 2012. ‘Mobile identities and fixed categories: Forensic DNA and the politics of racialized data’, in Schramm, K., Skinner, D. and Rottenburg, R. (eds.) Identity Politics and the New Genetics. Oxford: Berghahn Books, pp. 53–78.Google Scholar
Spichenok, Olga, Budimlija, Zoran M., Mitchell, Adele A., Jenny, Andreas, Kovacevic, Lejla, Marjanovic, Damir, Caragine, Theresa, Prinz, Mechthild and Wurmbach, Elisa 2011. ‘Prediction of eye and skin color in diverse populations using seven SNPs’, Forensic Science International: Genetics 5: 472–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Szreter, Simon and Breckenridge, Keith 2012. ‘Recognition and registration: The infrastructure of personhood in world history’, in Breckenridge, Keith and Szreter, Simon (eds.) Registration and Recognition: Documenting the person in world history. Oxford University Press, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. 1994. ‘The politics of recognition’, in Gutmann, Amy (ed.) Multiculturalism: Examining the politics of recognition. Princeton University Press, pp. 25–73.Google Scholar
Ten Have, Henk 1997. ‘Living with the future: Genetic information and human existence’, in Chadwick, Ruth, Levitt, Mairi and Shickle, Darren (eds.) The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know. Aldershot: Avebury, pp. 87–95.Google Scholar
Thompson, Simon 2006. The Political Theory of Recognition. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Toom, V. 2012. ‘Bodies of science and law: Forensic DNA profiling, biological bodies, and biopower’, Journal of Law and Society 39(1): 150–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walsh, S., Lindenbergh, A., Zuniga, S. B., Sijen, T., de Knijff, P., Kayser, M. and Ballantyne, K. N. 2011. ‘Developmental validation of the IrisPlex system: Determination of blue and brown iris colour for forensic intelligence’, Forensic Science International: Genetics 5(5): 464–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. and Johnson, P. 2008. Genetic Policing: The use of DNA in criminal investigations. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×