A DNA DATABASE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS:

THE ISSUE IN GENERAL:
A database of DNA from many or all individuals in a country would have many benefits. At the moment mostly such a database would be used mostly for scanning against a DNA sample coming from a crime scene, to help to identify a suspect. But it would not be so far fetched to say that someday all of this DNA will be sequenced, allowing our particular genes to be known. With this knowledge it could be highly likely that a letter gets sent saying “Mr ….., just to let you know you have gene CancBr37, meaning that you have a 47% increased likelihood of getting brain cancer above the population average. Please go to one of the listed medical centres for a CT scan….”. This could be considered beneficial. But what about an employer scrolling through potential recruits’ DNA information, “John …. has gene InacTv56. This gene generally results in its carrier having a reduced concentration span and a tendency to inactivity. Please remember that many genes are influenced by the environment….”. At some levels this Database can be considered useful, but at others it is simply a gross invasion of privacy. Do we need it? If so where do we draw the line?

POTENTIAL IMPLICATIONS:
In 1988 DNA was first used to convict a criminal in the UK, the murderer Colin Pitchfork. A few years later in 1995 the UK was also the first to institute a national database of DNA samples and attached profiles. So far the only application of this resource has been for proving identity, such as for crime fighting reasons, but some fear that will soon change. With the cost of base pair sequencing going down all the time, there may be many more uses for information stored in the database. Gene sequencing could potentially become standard, replacing the currently used Gel Electrophoresis which can only provide an identity match at best.

Privacy: With enough knowledge of genes and their interactions, gene sequencing opens another level of information gathering from DNA. Skin colour, height, hair colour and many other things could be found out. A profile of a suspect could be built by merely looking at his/her genes compared to those attached to individuals in a database. The database itself is controversial, some saying that it has a bias toward collecting samples from those we believe to be criminals, i.e. in the U.K. 8% of white males have the DNA on file, while 32% of black males do. One suggested way around this would be to make everyone have their DNA on the file, but this has issues too, especially if the DNA was to be sequenced.

Genetic Advantages/Disadvantages: A gene exists giving a tendency to do more work. A particular combination of genes gives a much greater chance of criminal behaviour. Many genes exist which give a much higher chance of getting cancer. A database complete with sequenced genes for each individual would give information like this. If made generally accessible, a likely outcome would be an employer or insurance company favouring certain people over others entirely on their (arbitrary) genes. This goes against the equality principle in the Human Rights act but this must also be balanced against the needs of others. Say there is a gene which gives a 90% greater chance of getting cancer. If gene-based insurance was allowed then the people with that gene would pay a lot more for health insurance. The other side of that is that the people who do not have the gene pay proportionally less for their own insurance. Is it fair to ask them to pay more to cover for the people who are much more likely to get sick and need payment? In the case of the employer, consider that a building firm is not guilty of discrimination if they refuse to hire a one-armed man because of the fact that he only has one arm, as this is a limiting factor in the work he will have to do. Now apply this to the gene giving the tendency to be a hard worker. Is the employer discriminating if he chooses an employee with this gene over some identical with the exception that they don’t have this gene? A database with such gene information, allowed to be used in the above manner, will make life easier for some people and much harder for others.

Increased Manipulation by Advertising: The information stored in the DNA database (especially if it was expanded to the entire population) would be an advertiser’s dream. Already most advertising aims to appeal to the subconscious, and the knowledge of genes which govern this would prove very valuable in creating subtle, unconscious influences on our thoughts and impulses. This is really only an expansion of the ‘normal’ methods of subconscious advertising, but it involves fixed information in ourselves that we can not change, our genes. How much of an influence ‘genetic-level’ advertising would have is uncertain, but it still represents a threat to or ability to choose, by creating ever stronger impulses on us to do this, buy that, e.t.c.

Targeted Healthcare: A sequenced DNA database would allow for targeted healthcare to individuals who have a genetic disease or a genetic predisposition to disease.

There will be more implications to a sequenced DNA database, once gene interactions become better understood. In particular the way that the environment affects particular gene expressions will be vital to understanding how this genetic information can be applied.

OPINIONS ON HAVING A DNA DATABASE:

American Civil Liberties Union: (Bigger Monster, Weaker Chains: The Growth of an American Surveillance Society By Jay Stanley and Barry Steinhardt, January 2003).
Strongly opposed to genetic databases and sequencing due to the loss of privacy that this may entail. In particular they are worried by the ease in which DNA samples can be secretly taken from someone without their knowing “DNA is very easy to acquire because we constantly slough off hair, saliva, skin cells and other samples of our DNA (household dust, for example, is made up primarily of dead human skin cells).”Also they are worried about the uses the information will be put to, such as Insurance discrimination and employment discrimination based on genetic profiles. Finally they think there is a risk of genetic spying, such as obtaining a celebrities’ DNA profile and posting it on the internet.



FBI Forensics Division: (Dwight E. Adams, Deputy Assistant Director, Laboratory Division, FBI, June 12, 2001
"The FBI's DNA Program")
Pro-Database, wishing to create a USA-wide database called CODIS, which would eventually cover all felons in the USA. DNA should be seen as a useful tool for finding criminals, “One of the underlying concepts behind CODIS is to create a database of a state's convicted offender profiles and use it to solve crimes for which there are no suspects.” He believes the process is extremely reliable with 13 STR sites used on samples, which is a national required standard. He also thinks DNA evidence will increase in importance as a factor in solving crimes “An identification tool that was initially thought to benefit the investigation of sexual assault cases has proven to have much wider application in the investigation and prosecution of crimes”.



My Own Opinion: In principle I agree with a DNA database, such as is currently in the U.K., if it is properly controlled and monitored. This provides a good tool for catching criminals and clearing innocent suspects and its scope for abuse is limited, as all that can be done with it is prove identity using banding patterns, and from what I found in my research many would agree with me. I would not however want to have a DNA database that included the sequenced genes. This extra step brings to mind many more disadvantages than advantages, as stated in the implications. Sequencing should only be done on an individual level for those who particularly need and not on an ‘entire country’ scale of a database. I say this because genes do define who you are to a large extent. I would not want someone completely unrelated to know such personal information about me. A fitting quote I found from David Laser at Harvard University read “Would you want to have J. Edgar Hoover to have his hands on everyone’s DNA? Maybe not immediately understandable to us, but consider the background. Hoover was an US Senator and the chief of the FBI and was rather notorious for misusing information against those he happened not to like. A DNA database could potentially be very damaging if used in this way and there are certainly people around who would (if Winston Peters had this sort of information?).

EVALUATION AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
As most of the sources admitted the processes and equipment used in DNA processing and sequencing are rapidly evolving. However the basics of each process are still the same and these are what I have provided. If however I was going to do a detailed step by step description of a process I would probably describe a process that is outdated, purely because of the rapid developments in this area.

As for the opinions on this area of Biotechnology, in particular on the DNA database, most of these had fairly predictable biases, with the ALCU taking an anti-database position on the grounds of breach of privacy, to the FBI Forensics scientists who took a pro-database position because of their understanding that the process works extremely well if used properly.

My resources were well justified and backed up and so I conclude that they are valid to use as information. Many of the resources, especially the ones from scientific journals would have also been subject to review by someone else who knew the subject well. This will also insure the validity of their information.

-