- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
F.B.I. Plans to Grow DNA Database
The Federal Bureau of Investigation plans to grow its DNA database, reports The New York Times. Currently 6.7 million profiles strong, the idea is to go from 80,000 new entries every year to 1.2 million in 2012.
While genetic information is certainly useful in catching some offenders and exonerating the wrongfully imprisoned, this ramp-up nevertheless raises a host of privacy questions. But the F.B.I. is passing it off as the equivalent of fingerprinting:
Law enforcement officials say that DNA extraction upon arrest is no different than fingerprinting at routine bookings and that states purge profiles after people are cleared of suspicion. In practice, defense lawyers say this is a laborious process that often involves a court order. (The F.B.I. says it has never received a request to purge a profile from its database.)
The story also cites a Congressional Research Service report on the impact of compulsory DNA collection on fourth amendment rights. The report points out that while the FBI creates genetic profiles using “junk DNA,” which was originally assumed to be non-coding, “because it is thought to lack both a biological purpose and indicators of sensitive medical characteristics.” But as genetic research has advanced, it has become clear that DNA once deemed extraneous does in fact play a significant role. Bioethicist Sheri Alpert addressed the issue in a report last year on privacy issues in genomic medicine (sub’s required): “[T]here is likely much more interplay among genes and the noncoding portions of the genome and that each gene must play a role in more proteins, traits, and diseases than previously thought.”
Bottom line: storing genetic information in a database means retaining data that may reveal more about a person that we can even interpret at the present moment. The full privacy implications may not be clear until research advances.
Comments on this article
