Hameed Gado
11/11/2022
FIQWS 10111
Brenna Crowe
Should genomics data be collected and used by the FBI to solve crimes?
Would you allow your Genetic information to be used by the government? Genomic research examines a person’s whole genome, including how their genes communicate with one another and with their environment. Thanks to the massive amount of information about human DNA generated by the Human Genome Project and other genomic research, scientists and clinicians now have more effective tools to study the role that various genetic factors acting jointly and in concert with the environment play in much more complex diseases. They have developed new tools, including the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), which is used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) program of support and software for criminal justice DNA databases, and Investigative Genetic Genealogy (IGG), also known as Forensic Genealogy, is a new investigative tool that combines the genetic analysis of crime scene samples with the mining of information in publicly available genetic genealogy databases and traditional methods. Genetic data is currently used by law enforcement to undertake criminal investigations. The legal system also employs genetic information to exonerate defendants who have been convicted of crimes they did not commit. Although some individuals contend that using investigative tools is unethical and it violates the fourth amendment, I disagree because it helps solve crimes quicker and can assist in solving unsolved crimes, and it helps with research on health and crime related issues.
The question of whether genomic techniques should be utilized to solve crimes in spite of their drawbacks has come up in recent debates on these tools. On the one hand, some argue that it should be used because it’s a valuable tool the FBI uses to solve crimes faster and solve crimes that have not been solved using these tools. According to the National Genome Research Institute, “FBI officials report that IGG technology helped solve over 50 cold cases in its first 18 months of use”. Yet a careful analysis of the data reveals that the Investigative genetic genealogy tool helped solve over 50 cases that the FBI were struggling to solve, or have put on hold because of lack of evidence. The National Genome Research Institute also claims that, “IGG examines over half a million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that span the genome. In comparison, traditional profiling methods like CODIS use only 13-20 designated microsatellites”. Based on this statement, the technology has improved significantly and I believe it will only get better. It proves that IGG is a fast technology that is useful to solve crimes faster. In instances involving stranger victimization, which have historically been more challenging to solve, investigative technologies has been employed largely to solve cases involving serial and sexual assault against female and vulnerable victims. According to Tracey Leigh Dowdeswell a professor of criminology, “About 80% of victims were targeted for sexual violence, and about 28% belonged to social groups that are particularly vulnerable to criminal and sexual exploitation…The average time for FGG to clear a case was found to be 12.1 months”. In this case, the victims are mostly people that are vulnerable. And the time it takes for Investigative technology to clear a case is 1 year. These are heinous acts that must be investigated. And having these fast-acting investigative tools makes it easier for the FBI to crack these cases, protecting the communities and groups most vulnerable to these crimes. Another example of how certain investigative methods speed up criminal investigation The book Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers by John M. Butler states that repeat criminals conduct the majority of crimes. In fact, more than 60% of those who were incarcerated for violent crimes and afterwards released were later imprisoned for a related crime within three years (chapter 18, paragraph 3, forensic dna typing). This statement emphasizes, in my opinion, how important it is to keep human DNA in these investigative tools since doing so speeds up and simplifies the criminal investigation process. Especially the vast majority of offenders who are detained once more for the same crime. These investigation technologies fundamentally save time and resources by speedily solving these crimes.
As was previously said, those who disagree with the notion of utilizing investigative tools frequently overlook the reasons why having such tools is essential to databases for concerns relating to crime and health. While others think using these tools are significant to solving crime. I think it’s advantageous to increase the criminal and health database sizes. According to J Law Bioscience, “These genomic tests have already proven valuable in diagnosing disorders whose etiology is unknown, as can be the case for some children with developmental disability or critical illness as neonates”. The Journal of law and the biosciences emphasizes that these genomics tests are important resources scientists use to diagnose disorders that are unknown especially to children and can stagnate their growth and can develop disability. So it is important to give up DNA information to prevent or make scientists aware of any diseases that may be unknown and can have significant effects on people. In the article, Using Genetic Technologies To Reduce, Rather Than Widen, Health Disparities, it states that “These technologies can detect mutations not only across the entire genome, but also in tumors themselves. The technologies have heightened awareness of the complexity and heterogeneity of diseases such as cancer and brought the promise of precision medicine closer to reality”. The article emphasizes how technology has advanced, increasing our knowledge on mutations in the DNA and capacity to identify diseases like cancer and enabling scientists to create medications to treat them. I agree with this statement because it shows how much technologies have improved and why it is important to gather information about mutations in DNA to help further improve the scientists who are in that field. According to Ray A.Wickenhsiser, “The New Zealand DNA Profile Databank possesses over 200,000 samples and over 40,000 DNA profiles from forensic samples. There is a match rate of nearly 70% for all previously unsolved cases successfully linked to individuals and 30% link to another crime”. Wickenshiser demonstrates that the DNA profile has over 200,000 samples and over 40,000 DNA profiles from forensic samples. And more importantly, about 70% of past crimes that have gone unsolved are linked to individuals and 30% are linked to another crime committed. I agree with Wickenheiser’s statement as it proves how important it is to have these DNA databases or samples collected to be able to gather information that are crucial to understand how or why crimes correlate to each other. I think these databases should be collected by the government and be stored as a resource to solve crimes.
Many proponents contend that using investigative tools is unethical. They worry about the kind of information that can be used or stored by these databases or research teams. According to the National Human Genome Institute, “There is also controversy surrounding the use of familial searching with partial CODIS matches, which can reveal the identity of someone with a close biological relationship to the presumed criminal suspect”. These genome technologies have the abilities to find close relatives through DNA profiling. By doing that, it finds information about presumed criminal suspects and their family relatives who have nothing to do with the case. People also worry that the information that are recovered by these technologies can sometimes be discriminatory to them. Though I grant that these investigative technologies can reveal information that is important and sensitive to people, I still maintain the importance of having these technologies are greater. According to Journal of law and the biosciences “In 2008, GINA was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.73 Unlike other civil rights laws, GINA was not enacted to remedy ongoing discrimination; rather, it was intended to preempt discrimination that was feared, but not well documented as yet occurring”. The GINA was basically passed to prevent people from getting discriminated against based on information these technologies, research teams or companies find. In Addition, according to journal of law and the bioscience, “GINA’s two main titles prohibit discrimination based on genetic information in health insurance (Title I) and employment (Title II)”. Meaning it prevents insurance companies and employers from using this information to discriminate against people. Ultimately, people get to decide the amount of information the company or the government can use because of the laws that have been passed to protect them.
Therefore, these technologies were developed to save lives. The FBI needs these genetic technologies because they speed up the investigation of crimes and aid with cases that have been unresolved for some time. The capacity of these investigative tools to collect vast amounts of DNA data about individuals is crucial. As many as 70% of offenders are ultimately caught again for previous offenses. Despite the fact that possessing sensitive information on individuals and their families could appear immoral. By keeping this knowledge on hand, the public is shielded from danger and time and money is saved.
Works cited
Investigative Genomics. Genome.gov, May 9, 2021
Dowdeswell, Tracey Leigh. Forensic genetic genealogy: A profile of cases solved.Forensic Science International: Genetics 58 (2022): 102679.
Clayton, Ellen Wright et al. The law of genetic privacy: applications, implications, and limitations. Journal of law and the biosciences vol. 6,1 1-36. 14 May. 2019, doi:10.1093/jlb/lsz007
Wickenheiser, Ray A. Expanding DNA database effectiveness. Forensic Science International: Synergy 4 (2022): 100226.
Smith, Caren E., et al. Using genetic technologies to reduce, rather than widen, health disparities. Health Affairs 35.8 (2016): 1367-1373.
