Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T02:32:35.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Consumer Perspective on Forensic DNA Banking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Sharon F. Terry  and
Patrick F. Terry
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The currently evolving debate over ethical and legal approaches to DNA data banks reflects, in part, shifting societal perceptions of dividing lines between humanity and commodity, definitions of genetic inheritance between individuals and families, and the rights of the individual versus the rights of the community. Tensions arise whether the data bank has been created for medical or for forensic purposes. The authors, through their work as community activists described more fully below, have come to realize that the key to resolving these tensions and developing ethically acceptable DNA data bank practices is meaningful community engagement. Not unlike medical DNA data banks, personally identifiable DNA samples are routinely retained by states long after a convict's or arrestee's DNA profile has been derived from it and entered into the state database. The question arises, then, as to what, if any, non-forensic uses can these samples – ethically – be put.

Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , Summer 2006 , pp. 408 - 414
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

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

Williams, R. and Johnson, P., “‘Wonderment and Dread’: Representations of DNA in Ethical Disputes about Forensic DNA Databases,” New Genetics & Society 23 (2004): 205–23; Hannig, V. L., Clayton, E. W., and Edwards, K. M., “Whose DNA is it Anyway? Relationships between Families and Researchers,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 47 (1993): 257–60; Harlan, L. M., “When Privacy Fails: Invoking a Property Paradigm to Mandate the Destruction of DNA Samples,” Duke Law Journal 53 (2004): 179–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, Wests Calif Report 249, 494–540 (1988).Google Scholar
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Wests Fed Suppl 264, 1064–78 (2003).Google Scholar
Bowden, M., Native American Philanthropy (Paper I). The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University Briefing Paper (2001), Muskegan, MI.Google Scholar
Caulfield, T. and Brownsword, R., “Human Dignity: A Guide to Policy Making in the Biotechnology Era?” Nature Reviews Genetics 7 (2006): 72–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, N. J., “Citizen Deliberation in Setting Health-Care Priorities,” Health Expect 8 (2005): 172–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, S. F. and Boyd, C. D., “Researching the Biology of PXE: Partnering in the Process,” American Journal of Medical Genetics 106 (2001): 177–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Terry, S. F. and Davidson, M. E., “Empowering the Public to be Informed Consumers of Genetic Technologies and Services,” Community Genet 3 (2000): 148–50.Google Scholar
Hakimian, R. and Korn, D., “Ownership and Use of Tissue Specimens for Research,” JAMA 292 (2004): 2500–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paradise, J., Andrews, L. and Holbrook, T. “Intellectual Property: Patents on Human Genes: An Analysis of Scope and Claims,” Science 307 (2005): 1566–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, J. A. and Golod, E., “Human Gene Patents,” Academic Medicine 77 (2002): 1315–28. Fleischer, M., “Patent Thyself,” The American Lawyer (2001): 84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar