DNA testing
When the subject of DNA testing for forensic purposes is raised there
is always the hint of George Orwell's Big Brother in the background. This
is perhaps an understandable shadow, when you consider the maze of strange
regulations that is afflicting the civilised world, threatening to suppress
individual endeavour and initiative. Yet the identification of individuals
by studying their DNA is really nothing to be afraid of, provided it is
not abused.
In Nature for 8 August two researchers from the University of
Melbourne offer a lucid explanation of the virtues and the possibilities
of this well-established biological investigation. The polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) on which it depends is a well-established technique which
when carried out by experienced operators gives reliable results, without
artefacts. The latest gene amplification techniques allow a unique DNA
match to be performed from a single nucleated blood cell, cheek epithelial
cell, saliva, sperm, a hair follicle or skin cells present in a fingerprint.
The uses to which findings might be put constitute the reason why many
people fear the investigation. It is feared that the test might violate
privacy, so that governments, insurance companies, employers and other
interested parties might wrongly access genetic information about us.
People fear that contamination or error might lead to a wrongful conviction
for some crime.
For this reason, specific safeguards are essential in DNA testing to
eliminate misunderstanding and possible miscarriages of justice. Measures
should ensure that laboratories responsible for testing are properly accredited
and independent of the police, and periodically reassessed for reliability.
Samples for testing should be sent directly to the testing laboratory,
and if possible divided into two to permit access to defence as well as
prosecution. Packaging should be tamper-proof. Samples should be destroyed
after recording the DNA profile. Data should be kept in national or international
databases, independent of police.
There are possible alternatives when it comes to actual sampling. Samples
might be taken only from convicted criminals, from these and also suspects,
or from everyone in the community, preferably at birth. The authors of
the commentary maintain: "The most logical and fair practice — and also
the most controversial — would be to DNA-test all individuals at birth.
This would not only act as a deterrent from crime for all members of the
community, but would make the task of catching criminals easier for police.
If the correct safeguards are in place to protect civil liberties, why
should a proposal to test everyone at birth be a frightening one? On the
other hand, if the correct safeguards are not in place, and the fears
are justified, why are we daring to test anyone at all?" That seems to
me to be a logical question.
Back to Top
|
Baldwin
Brown in his 'The art of the cave dweller' (1928) describes how a landowner
in the Santander province of northern Spain entered a cave on his estate
which had been closed from time immemorial but newly revealed after quarrying
operations in 1875. Here he discovered on the floor the footprints of
a cave bear and black pigment on the walls. He neglected to look further,
but in 1879 he again entered, accompanied by his seven-year-old daughter,
who ventured further and excitedly told her father that there were pictures
of beasts on the roof or plafond, and in particular a remarkable bull
in colour. He was struck with the paintings of bison and boars, which
afterwards brought the cavern of Altamirs into international repute.