Comments on: DNA sampling: just another data-point?

By: Alan G

Alan G — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:20:38 +0000

On the first point, I’m not sure I would want the government collecting ID on people who haven’t been convicted yet–it would seem to be not in the vein of “innocent until proven guilty.”

On the second, I doubt there could be any “absolute” guarentees, but assuming this hypothetical situation were true…I’m not sure.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 19:06:42 +0000

The federal government is going to begin sampling DNA at point of contact (detention, arrest).

Let’s assume for the moment they’ll only be using “junk dna”. Does that then mean it’s okay to sample people who are presumed innocent?

Conversely — if we could be absolutely certain that the government would only collect this non-delicate “junk”, would we all be willing to go get our cheeks swabbed?

By: Lynx

Lynx — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:57:50 +0000

As Kevin H says, a DNA fingerprint doesn’t necessarily have to be contained with a complete DNA sample or have information that is medically relevant. Vast portions of our DNA is “junk” DNA, sequences that are repeated over and over again. The ends of chromosomes, the middle, and several other areas, have repeat sequences. Now, the interesting part is that this repeat DNA is not the same for everyone, in fact, it’s different for each one of us. Each of us inherits half our DNA from the mother, half from the father. Using certain enzymes, called restriction enzymes, you can cut a DNA sample into multiple pieces, targeting certain sequences. Due to the fact that these repeat sequences are different for everyone, the result of cutting them is going to be different for everyone as well. You can make a visual “map” with the result, and it’ll be different for every person. As long as you record the “map” it can be checked against your DNA without that map containing any delicate information. Paternity tests are done this way.

Now, this isn’t a particularly quick process, and though I’m sure it’ll become faster, using it for routine ID purposes seems a tad ridiculous. Fingerprints, eye retinas and plain old photographs will do fine for now, at least.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:35:04 +0000

Kevin H – When you going to have your RFID chip injected into your arm. They can include your dining tastes, then at your favorite resuraunt your robot waiter will bring your order.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:29:11 +0000

oops, forgot the link to the wikipedia article. sorry.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:28:10 +0000

There is a way to seperate out the ‘fringerprint’ info from a complete genetic record.

According to this wikipedia article the most common form of DNA fingerprinting is STR analysis. Now I’ve never done this myself, but from the articles it seems clear to me that this is non-coding or junk DNA. This is creat news for privacy concerns, buecause knowing how many repeats a person has of a certain sequence tells you nothing about their genetic makeup, so an STR test result tells you nothing about wither a person is predisposed to heart conditions or such.

So, what we could do is have people give a small ammount of tissue, generally i think they just swab a cheek, and perform a useful analysis such as a STR. The results could be saved electronically much like a fingerprint, while the tissue itself is discarded. This allows for an idetification database, while preventing anyone from mining databases for personally relevant information.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:34:16 +0000

Alan G nails the down side of a DNA database. This info could be extremely valuable between a doctor and patient, but only between the two and the DNA info must stay private. A national database opens up a potentail for abuse by government and the private sector.

By: Alan G

Alan G — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:16:14 +0000

But DNA contains much more information than a fingerprint, things you might not want other people to find out.

What if you’re from a conservative family or church and it’s discovered that your DNA has a gene associated with homosexuality? If they find out you could be kicked out or lose your job.

Or what if you have genes that put you at increased risk of physical or mental illness? If your insurer finds out they might cancel your coverage.

Employers might not want to hire you if they find out your genetic profile includes genes for personality characteristics they disapprove of, or ones that will increase your childrens’ likelihood of illness (and thus cause you to take more time off).

By: Paul Silver

Paul Silver — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:00:43 +0000

I’m a fan of a DNA database to improve our societies ability to separate the good folks from predators.
Perhaps it can also be positioned as a benefit. A DNA database could be used to alert people when they have treatable ailments or when new treatments are approved. It could be used to screen a family tree to alert people to genetic predispositions such as physical or mental issues that can be influenced by treatment. It could be a factor is correcting identity theft. It could help to locate missing children.

Perhaps we can build the list as a voluntary options until the advantages or disadvantages would become clear to the remaining population.

By: Polimom

Polimom — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:44:50 +0000

Not any more. Not for almost a quarter of a century, in fact. (My, that feels odd to write…)

By: Holly in Cincinnati

Holly in Cincinnati — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:41:24 +0000

Are you a deputy sheriff?