NEWS

Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys calls on Parliamentary committee for removal of innocents from DNA database

Genetics expert points to a society of future possibly ‘guiltyishness’

Issued on 08 February 2010

Pioneering University of Leicester geneticist, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented the technique for DNA fingerprinting, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee calling for removal of innocent people from the DNA database.

Currently, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on what has become the world’s largest DNA database per capita, regardless of whether they are convicted or charged. However, this is responsible for causing distress to those wrongfully accused and dispels one of the nation’s beliefs that we are innocent until proven guilty according to the man whose research made DNA profiling possible.

The government has scrapped initial plans for retaining this information for a 12 year period; however, they are keen to keep DNA profiles of those arrested individuals on file for six years. The database currently contains approximately 5 million DNA profiles and it is believed that almost 1 million of these are from innocent people who have their potentially intimate DNA records on file for no reason, according to Professor Jeffreys.

During the third session of the inquiry into the National DNA Database, Professor Jeffreys said:

“If my DNA were to be put on the database, I would object profoundly against that. What advantage is it to me as an entirely blameless citizen with no criminal record and no criminal record in the future to put my DNA on that database?

“The best outcome would be that my DNA would sit there cluttering up a fridge somewhere, that my DNA profile would sit there cluttering up the database somewhere. The worst that could happen is that some glitch in the database gave a false match to my DNA profile, bringing me into the frame of a criminal investigation which could have very serious repercussions.”

The Home Affairs Select Committee, chaired by Rt Hon Keith Vaz, MP for Leicester East, heard evidence from Professor Jeffreys pointing to the fact that this method militated against our traditional values:

“I always understood that one of the great foundations of English law was the presumption of innocence and what we’re seeing now is the presumption of future possibly ‘guiltyishness’. I find that a deeply worrying shift in the whole sort of ethos of how the legal system operates.”

As well as invading the privacy of innocent individuals by keeping their information on the database, there is also a risk of making a mistake when matching the DNA at a crime scene to a DNA profile on the database. There may be a greater chance of winning the lottery than a false match being made, however, someone wins the lottery every week and therefore the chances may not be as remote as first suspected, especially making mistakes between family members with similar DNA profiles; the odds of an error here can be as high as 1 in 200,000.

Professor Jeffreys said:

“There is a risk of a false match. It is remote but it is not zero and I do have a very major concern; if there were one false conviction based upon an adventitious DNA match, the damage that could do to the public perception of the DNA database could be very serious indeed.”

Professor Jeffreys declared his support for the system to contain profiles of criminals, suggesting that the guilty ought to be on the database unquestionably. However, the innocent, uncharged and unconvicted should not be on the database. Professor Jeffreys points to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that these individuals are enriched in future criminal behaviour.

Instead, he suggests:

“My vision would be of a parallel database, essentially of DNA as a personal certificate of identity, providing DNA identifiers for individuals, and allow the police to keep their criminal DNA database. One could then imagine how those two could possibly interface.

“I would be very content to see us follow the Scottish model of retention only in the case of serious crime and for a limited period followed by judicial review. I think they’ve got it right.”

To read Professor Jeffreys’s full witness testament, click here < http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5797>.

Amy Cory