Bruce Budowle, Lee Baker, Antti Sajantila, Kristen Mittelman, David Mittelman
{"title":"Prioritizing privacy and presentation of supportable hypothesis testing in forensic genetic genealogy investigations.","authors":"Bruce Budowle, Lee Baker, Antti Sajantila, Kristen Mittelman, David Mittelman","doi":"10.1080/07366205.2024.2386218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Investigative leads are not generated by traditional forensic DNA testing, if the source of the forensic evidence or a 1st degree relative of unidentified human remains is not in the DNA database. In such cases, forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) can provide valuable leads. However, FGG generated genetic data contain private and sensitive information. Therefore, it is essential to deploy approaches that minimize unnecessary disclosure of these data to mitigate potential risks to individual privacy. We recommend protective practices that need not impact effective reporting of relationship identifications. Examples include performing one-to-one comparisons of DNA profiles of third-party samples and evidence samples offline with an \"air gap\" to the internet and shielding the specific shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) states and locations by binning adjacent SNPs in forensic reports. Such approaches reduce risk of unwanted access to or reverse engineering of third-party individuals' genetic data and can give these donors greater confidence to support use of their DNA profiles in FGG investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":8945,"journal":{"name":"BioTechniques","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BioTechniques","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07366205.2024.2386218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Investigative leads are not generated by traditional forensic DNA testing, if the source of the forensic evidence or a 1st degree relative of unidentified human remains is not in the DNA database. In such cases, forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) can provide valuable leads. However, FGG generated genetic data contain private and sensitive information. Therefore, it is essential to deploy approaches that minimize unnecessary disclosure of these data to mitigate potential risks to individual privacy. We recommend protective practices that need not impact effective reporting of relationship identifications. Examples include performing one-to-one comparisons of DNA profiles of third-party samples and evidence samples offline with an "air gap" to the internet and shielding the specific shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) states and locations by binning adjacent SNPs in forensic reports. Such approaches reduce risk of unwanted access to or reverse engineering of third-party individuals' genetic data and can give these donors greater confidence to support use of their DNA profiles in FGG investigation.
如果法医证据的来源或身份不明遗骸的一级亲属不在 DNA 数据库中,传统的法医 DNA 检测就无法产生调查线索。在这种情况下,法医基因谱(FGG)可以提供有价值的线索。然而,FGG 生成的基因数据包含隐私和敏感信息。因此,必须采取尽量减少不必要披露这些数据的方法,以降低对个人隐私的潜在风险。我们建议采取不影响有效报告关系识别的保护措施。例如,对第三方样本和证据样本的脱机 DNA 图谱进行一对一的比较,并与互联网保持 "间隙";在法医报告中对相邻 SNP 进行分选,以屏蔽特定的共享单核苷酸多态性 (SNP) 状态和位置。这种方法降低了意外访问或逆向工程第三方个人基因数据的风险,并可使这些捐献者更有信心支持在 FGG 调查中使用其 DNA 图谱。
期刊介绍:
BioTechniques is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to publishing original laboratory methods, related technical and software tools, and methods-oriented review articles that are of broad interest to professional life scientists, as well as to scientists from other disciplines (e.g., chemistry, physics, computer science, plant and agricultural science and climate science) interested in life science applications for their technologies.
Since 1983, BioTechniques has been a leading peer-reviewed journal for methods-related research. The journal considers:
Reports describing innovative new methods, platforms and software, substantive modifications to existing methods, or innovative applications of existing methods, techniques & tools to new models or scientific questions
Descriptions of technical tools that facilitate the design or performance of experiments or data analysis, such as software and simple laboratory devices
Surveys of technical approaches related to broad fields of research
Reviews discussing advancements in techniques and methods related to broad fields of research
Letters to the Editor and Expert Opinions highlighting interesting observations or cautionary tales concerning experimental design, methodology or analysis.