IN THE US, it would be protected by steel doors and armed guards. In Britain,
anonymity does the job. Tucked away on an industrial estate near Birmingham,
you鈥檇 scarcely know the brick-and-glass building was there鈥攍et alone that
it houses the biggest collection of human DNA in the world. A collection that鈥檚
getting bigger鈥攁nd more contentious鈥攂y the day.
For years, police in Britain have been quietly exercising their right to
collect saliva swabs from almost anyone they take into custody. Those swabs now
fill scores of industrial freezers in the basement of the anonymous-looking
building. Upstairs, a database holds over a million DNA profiles based on these
samples. And because crime never stops, up to 3000 new samples arrive every
day.
On the streets of LA or New York the cops might have more firepower. But it鈥檚
in Britain, land of the unarmed bobby on the beat, where the brave new world of
the 鈥淒NA police鈥� is taking shape. And if Tony Blair and his colleagues have
their way, it鈥檒l take shape sooner than most people realise.
Advertisement
The British government wants to treble the number of DNA samples police take
and expand the criminal database to 3.5 million samples over the next three
years. That means the police will hold the DNA profile of nearly 1 out of every
15 people in Britain.
To hit this target, the government is giving the police unprecedented powers
to collect and keep DNA samples from suspects鈥攅ven if they turn out to be
innocent. The necessary Criminal Justice and Police Bill is being considered by
Parliament right now. Police chiefs are ecstatic. Civil rights advocates see it
as unparalleled threat to privacy. But most people in Britain seem to be
sleepwalking through the debate.
Now could be the time to wake up. New Scientist has found that
forensic experts鈥攖he people you鈥檇 expect to be most in favour鈥攁re
actually uneasy about the proposal to retain DNA samples. Even the inventor of
DNA fingerprinting is alarmed. 鈥淚鈥檓 totally opposed,鈥� says Alec Jeffreys of the
University of Leicester. 鈥淚t鈥檚 discriminating, inconsistent with privacy laws
and an example of ad hoc sloppy thinking.鈥�
There鈥檚 no doubt DNA evidence is transforming police work鈥攁nd mostly
for the better. All detectives need do is find a single hair, speck of blood or
even a flake of dandruff at a crime scene. Then, after the few hours it takes
for analysis, they can trawl the database for matching DNA.
Often with stunning success. Since 1995, more than 100,000 links between
people and crime scenes have popped out of the computer. Every week, it delivers
800 more. And it鈥檚 no longer just murderers or rapists who have to worry. In
Britain these days, nearly 90 per cent of all DNA matches are for burglaries,
robberies and car theft.
Increasingly, there is nowhere for criminals to hide, as Stephen Snowden
found out when he was arrested for stealing a bottle of whisky from a British
supermarket. DNA testing linked him to the rape, years earlier, of a woman whose
car broke down. Stealing the whisky led to a 12-year sentence for rape.
So routinely 鈥渟wabbing鈥� everyone taken into custody can pay off bigtime. It
is what happens to the samples and profiles afterwards that disturbs critics.
Other countries with a criminal DNA database destroy them if the suspect is
cleared. Uniquely, the British government intends to keep them indefinitely,
regardless of the outcome. So the DNA profiles of thousands of innocent people
will end up on the criminal database.
鈥淚t goes against fundamental principles of justice,鈥� says David Balding, a
geneticist at the University of Reading who helped expose early statistical
problems with DNA fingerprinting. 鈥淚f you鈥檙e acquitted or found not guilty, you
shouldn鈥檛 have to pay any kind of penalty, no matter how small.鈥�
But what is the penalty? As Britain鈥檚 Home Office likes to point out, if you
are an innocent, law-abiding person, why should you worry about having your DNA
profile scanned in the nightly trawl for criminals?
One reason is that being on a database of potential offenders regularly
searched by the police puts you at risk of being wrongly accused of crimes. The
risk of two people having the same DNA profile is nowhere near as great as it
once was, thanks to technical advances鈥攂ut it can happen. Raymond Easton,
a builder from Swindon, gave a DNA sample in 1995 after a minor domestic
incident. Three years later, he became the prime suspect for a burglary after
the forensic computer matched his profile to a drop of blood from the crime
scene. By this time, Easton was suffering from Parkinson鈥檚 disease and had
trouble dressing himself.
The match was based on an analysis of six regions of the DNA found at the
crime scene. There was only a 1 in 37 million chance of another person matching
in each of the six regions. Unfortunately, Easton was that person. In 1999, a
more powerful test based on 10 regions of his DNA cleared him. The episode so
rattled Britain鈥檚 Forensic Science Service that they immediately made the more
expensive 10-region test standard.
This has shrunk the risk of a chance match to one in a billion. But the
possibility of a rogue result hasn鈥檛 vanished altogether. 鈥淭here鈥檚 always the
possibility of error, even with the 10-point match,鈥� says Robert Forrest, a
forensic toxicologist at the University of Sheffield. 鈥淭he tests are carried out
by humans, and humans are prone to error.鈥�
Humans are also prone to shedding bits of themselves wherever they
go鈥攃reating more possibilities for wrongful suspicion. As few as 50
cells鈥攖he number you might shed brushing the back of your hand against a
glass door鈥攃an yield a genetic fingerprint. And soon a single cell might
be enough.
鈥淎s the tests become more sensitive, there鈥檚 a greater chance of picking up
innocent contact at a crime scene,鈥� says Adrian Linacre, a forensics expert at
the University of Strathclyde. A stray hair or cigarette butt dropped by an
innocent person might bring them under suspicion if they are on the
database.
A bigger concern is what happens to the stored DNA samples and profiles in
the future. Who will have access to them and the information they contain?
A DNA profile is just a string of numbers stored on a computer (see below).
In theory it contains no more information about you than the number on your
driving licence. But the samples in the freezer contain all your genetic
secrets. Scientists might one day be able to return and extract detailed
information about your appearance, health and even your behaviour.
It is already possible to test crime scene DNA to see if the offender has red
hair. In future, police might want to know about height, skin colour or even any
unusual medical conditions. Britain鈥檚 national DNA database would be an ideal
place to go trawling for the genetic markers needed to develop such biological
鈥减丑辞迟辞蹿颈迟蝉鈥�.
And crucially, if someone does attempt to use the database for this purpose,
the DNA donors will be unable to object. 鈥淥ne of the principles of research is
that you can withdraw consent from a project,鈥� says Forrest. 鈥淗ere you can鈥檛
withdraw consent.鈥�
Forrest also worries the huge emphasis being placed on DNA evidence will
tempt police to arrest people on trumped-up minor charges just to get a DNA
sample. That, say some, would take us perilously close to random DNA sampling on
the streets. Indeed, efforts are already underway to develop handheld DNA
profilers.
The government rejects this as paranoia, and claims that current laws make it
illegal to use the database for anything other than identifying suspects. But
laws can always be ignored鈥攁nd have been. When the national database was
set up in 1995, samples and profiles were supposed to be destroyed if suspects
were cleared. That hasn鈥檛 been happening. Last year, an internal government
report estimated that up to 80,000 samples and profiles were being retained
illegally.
Even the government鈥檚 own advisers fear the worst. According to Britain鈥檚
Data Protection Act, anyone who volunteers biological samples for a database has
the right at a later date to ask for the sample and corresponding record to be
destroyed. The new legislation specifically removes that right, says Jonathan
Bamford, assistant commissioner of the Data Protection Commission.
Bamford thinks the onus should be on the police to prove the benefits of
keeping DNA records of innocent people. 鈥淚f there are no matches, what is the
purpose of keeping the sample and record?鈥�
To deter people from committing more serious offences, perhaps. 鈥淭here鈥檚 no
evidence that DNA records act as a deterrent,鈥� says Forrest. 鈥淭hey are just as
likely to lead to more forensically aware offenders. You鈥檒l use a condom next
time you rape, or wear a disposable boiler suit.鈥� Indeed, one sex offender
caught recently was found to have shaved off all his body hair, trimmed his
nails and even plucked his nostril hairs.
So if not for deterrence, why do the authorities want to keep all the
records? Easy, says Alec Jeffreys. Deep down they believe that innocent people
who鈥檝e had a brush with the law are more likely than not to be criminals.
According to Jeffreys, there is only one way to prevent any abuse of the DNA
samples鈥攄estroy them all after a DNA profile has been obtained. Currently,
the police rely on going back to the samples to check any matches鈥攁
practice Jeffreys regards as suspect. Any checking of results, he says, should
be carried out on a fresh sample obtained from the suspect.
What alarms him most, though, is the unfairness of lumping together innocent
people and criminals. Suspects who are cleared should have the right to remove
their DNA profiles, he says. Or, more radically, the database should contain
everyone鈥檚 DNA profile, filed at birth.
That prospect will appal many civil rights campaigners. But according to
Jeffreys, it is fairer than what is being proposed. If you keep the DNA profiles
of some innocent people, he says, you ought to keep them all.
The end result of DNA profiling is a set of two numbers showing the number of
repeats in each copy of a particular marker. In the simplified example shown,
(see diagram)
it would be 3 4. The profiles stored in Britain鈥檚 National DNA Database
are actually based on 10 different repeat regions, plus a sex marker. So a real
profile of a man would be something like: 17 17; 14 17; 11 12; 16 17; XY; 13 14;
30 31; 11 23; 14 15; 7 8; 21 23. In addition, each entry in the database
includes a person鈥檚 name, their date of birth, sex and ethnicity. Other details
such as the police force involved and an arrest summons number are also
included.
