Pre-cum-Mains GS Foundation Program for UPSC 2026 | Starting from 5th Dec. 2024 Click Here for more information
Article:
1. Helen Wallace, Director, GeneWatch UK, analyzed the pros and cons of the recently introduced DNA technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill 2018 and also suggested futuristic course of action for the Bill.
Important facts:
1. Recently, the Bill was introduced in Parliament.
2. The purpose was to create a national DNA database for use by the police in solving crimes and identifying missing persons.
3. However the Bill was criticized on various grounds such as:
⦁ For creating large databases because these databases is often not a cost-effective way to solve more crimes.
⦁ The DNA Regulatory Board proposed by the Bill is not transparent and accountable.
⦁ The Forensic Genetics Policy Initiative published its report, “Establishing Best Practice for Forensic DNA Databases”, last year. A comparison with the
DNA Bill reveals the following issues:
1. Using DNA during criminal investigations requires proper crimes scene examination, trained and reliable policing, proper use of expert evidence on court.
2. Without these prerequisites, a DNA database will exacerbate rather than solve problems in the criminal justice system.
3. A number of other privacy protections are also missing from the Bill.
4. The Bill includes provisions for the destruction of DNA samples and removal of innocent people’s DNA profiles from the database.
5. These provisions are inadequate because it is unclear how they will operate in practice.
6. To set up these databases involved huge expenditure.
7. Important safeguards and a cost-benefit analysis are still lacking for this Bill.
8. A number of other privacy protections are also missing.
9. The Bill includes provisions for the destruction of DNA profiles from the database. However, these provisions are inadequate.
10. Recently, the Home Ministry provides guidelines to States on how to search crime scenes and collect, store and transport DNA samples in criminal cases.
11. The author provides the following suggestions:
⦁ Separate the databases for missing persons and for criminals set up by the Bill, so that people who volunteer their DNA to help find their missing relatives are not treated as suspects for criminal offences
⦁ Conflict-of-interest should be published for each board member when appointed.
⦁ Board proceedings should be published.
⦁ The Board need to review the ethics of its own behaviour
⦁ An independent ethics board should be set up.
⦁ Provisions which give the government or the Board the power to amend aspects of the safeguards in the Bill, and to avoid accountability in court, should be deleted.
⦁ The Boards responsibilities for privacy protections need an independent regulator. This is important after the Supreme Court’s Right to privacy judgment.
⦁ Need to restrict DNA profiling so that it uses only non-coding DNA.
⦁ Any international sharing of DNA profiles should be covered by a privacy or data protection law, and meet international human rights standards.
⦁ Separate the databases for missing persons and for criminals set up by the Bill. Provisions allowing the use of these databases for civil cases, for example to test paternity, should be deleted from the Bill.
