Erin Murphy

Since 1998, the government has overseen the aggregation of a national DNA database that now includes 6.5 million profiles. The database includes a mix of criminals and innocents rounded up in mass DNA “dragnets.” A lot of good has come from these databases: as of last December, roughly 80,900 links between genetic profiles had been made. While better data is needed to quantify how many associations led to meaningful advances in actual cases, anecdotal reports clearly suggest that DNA has dramatically aided law enforcement.

But DNA profiling, like all new scientific methods, is susceptible to misunderstanding and error. For this reason, qualified statisticians (including UC Berkeley scholars) have sought limited access to DNA profiles to ensure that the govermnment’s use of these materials is well-founded.

Although government institutions routinely grant researchers access to highly sensitive information (under strict privacy controls) the FBI and Department of Justice have refused to do this for the DNA database—and even threatened to cut off access to any state that does. This secrecy is unwarranted, because researchers are only seeking anonymous data, not any actual or identifiable biological samples.

Given the broad reliance on the accuracy of DNA matches—whether for criminal convictions despite contrary evidence or the recent approval of “familial searches” that comb databases for a perpetrator’s relatives—the government cannot defend its refusal. Neutral, qualified researchers need access to this material to protect the rights of the accused and prevent conviction of the innocent.

Erin Muprhy is Assistant Professor of Law.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.