Problematizing consent: searching genetic genealogy databases for law enforcement purposes

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q4 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY New Genetics and Society Pub Date : 2020-11-18 DOI:10.1080/14636778.2020.1843149
Gabrielle Samuel, D. Kennett
{"title":"Problematizing consent: searching genetic genealogy databases for law enforcement purposes","authors":"Gabrielle Samuel, D. Kennett","doi":"10.1080/14636778.2020.1843149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Genetic genealogy databases have become particularly attractive to law enforcement agencies, especially in the United States (US), which have started to employ genealogists to search them with unknown origin DNA from unidentified human remains (suicides, missing persons) or from a serious crime scene, to help identify the victim, or a potential suspected perpetrator, respectively. While this investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) technique holds much promise, its use – particularly during serious criminal investigations – has sparked a range of social and ethical concerns. Receiving consent for IGG from genetic genealogy database users has been argued as a way to address such concerns. While critiques of the importance of consent are well documented in the biomedical and forensic biobanking literature, this has not been explored for IGG. We sought to address this gap by exploring the views of UK stakeholders. Our research question was: what are UK public and professional stakeholders’ views about the importance of the consent process for IGG when used for serious criminal cases? The methodological approach was interview-based and exploratory. Our analysis identified that all interviewees stressed the importance of consent, though interviewees’ narratives pointed to inadequacies of individual-based consent as an ethical panacea for IGG.","PeriodicalId":54724,"journal":{"name":"New Genetics and Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Genetics and Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2020.1843149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Genetic genealogy databases have become particularly attractive to law enforcement agencies, especially in the United States (US), which have started to employ genealogists to search them with unknown origin DNA from unidentified human remains (suicides, missing persons) or from a serious crime scene, to help identify the victim, or a potential suspected perpetrator, respectively. While this investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) technique holds much promise, its use – particularly during serious criminal investigations – has sparked a range of social and ethical concerns. Receiving consent for IGG from genetic genealogy database users has been argued as a way to address such concerns. While critiques of the importance of consent are well documented in the biomedical and forensic biobanking literature, this has not been explored for IGG. We sought to address this gap by exploring the views of UK stakeholders. Our research question was: what are UK public and professional stakeholders’ views about the importance of the consent process for IGG when used for serious criminal cases? The methodological approach was interview-based and exploratory. Our analysis identified that all interviewees stressed the importance of consent, though interviewees’ narratives pointed to inadequacies of individual-based consent as an ethical panacea for IGG.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
问题同意:搜索遗传家谱数据库为执法目的
基因家谱数据库对执法机构特别有吸引力,特别是在美国,它们已经开始雇用家谱学家,用来自身份不明的人类遗骸(自杀、失踪人员)或严重犯罪现场的未知来源DNA进行搜索,以帮助分别识别受害者或潜在的犯罪嫌疑人。虽然这种调查基因谱系(IGG)技术很有希望,但它的使用——特别是在严重的刑事调查中——引发了一系列社会和伦理问题。获得基因谱系数据库用户对IGG的同意一直被认为是解决这些问题的一种方法。虽然对同意重要性的批评在生物医学和法医生物库文献中有很好的记录,但尚未对免疫组进行探讨。我们试图通过探索英国利益相关者的观点来解决这一差距。我们的研究问题是:英国公众和专业利益相关者对IGG用于严重刑事案件时同意程序的重要性有何看法?方法方法是基于访谈和探索性的。我们的分析发现,所有受访者都强调同意的重要性,尽管受访者的叙述指出,个人同意作为IGG的伦理灵丹妙药的不足之处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
New Genetics and Society
New Genetics and Society 生物-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
16.70%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: New Genetics and Society: Critical Studies of Contemporary Biosciences is a world-leading journal which: -Provides a focus for interdisciplinary and multi-disciplinary, leading-edge social science research on the new genetics and related biosciences; -Publishes theoretical and empirical contributions reflecting its multi-faceted development; -Provides an international platform for critical reflection and debate; -Is an invaluable research resource for the many related professions, including health, medicine and the law, wishing to keep abreast of fast changing developments in contemporary biosciences. New Genetics and Society publishes papers on the social aspects of the new genetics (widely defined), including gene editing, genomics, proteomics, epigenetics and systems biology; and the rapidly developing biosciences such as biomedical and reproductive therapies and technologies, xenotransplantation, stem cell research and neuroscience. Our focus is on developing a better understanding of the social, legal, ethical and policy aspects, including their local and global management and organisation.
期刊最新文献
A place for science and technology studies. Observation, collaboration and intervention Constructing maternal responsibility: narratives of “motherly love” and maternal blame in epigenetics research “Law at the frontiers of biomedicine” Are we ready for the genomic era? Insights from judges and lawyers “I am happy to be alive, but I prefer to have children without my chronic disease”: chronically ill persons’ views on reproduction and genetic testing for their own condition
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1