DNA database?

25 years ago, Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys discovered (by accident) that DNA could be used to identify individuals, much like fingerprinting. Since that day, DNA has been used by various law enforcement agencies, in cases of "who's the father" the world over, along with a few other contraversial uses (designer babies etc) - but is it time to take it to the next step, and introduce a database where everyone in the UK has a sample of DNA present - and also, is it even needed?

Ethical issues of a DNA database are pretty well documented, for starters DNA is owned by us, and us alone. So why should the government take into ownership a sample of this? What gives them the right? Personally, I think its far easier to look at it from the other perspective, why shouldn't the government have access to what is effectively a means of tracing where we have been and in some cases what we have done.

As with most things, it isn't so simple as that.

As well as using our DNA to solve crimes, the government could also potentially sell this information to insurance companies - which would be incredibly detrimental to us. For example someone with a gene linked with heart disease (remember genes do not cause diseases) or some other serious illness would experience much higher rates for health insurance. You may claim this would never happen due to it being discrimination (which is illegal in the UK), but that line of thought is in something of a grey area, not just because genes are never definite about anything - there are always environmental factors. Look at job interviews for example, they are for, basically, discriminating between applicants with concerns to aptitude for the job and communication skills - but there is some research which suggests that genes play a substantial role in behaviour. So in other words, our DNA being public could affect our prospects at getting jobs, too.

So, now we have established that a DNA database, if made public (which a bastardly money hungry UK government would undoubtedly do eventually), would increase descrimination, but based on comparitevely very little understood grounds and chance. Not very fair.

On the other side of the arguement, a DNA database would make crime fighting much more efficient, people could be linked to crime scenes by simple testing a sample and watching a profile of a person flash up on the screen. This is what is currently done with the DNA database of people who are involved with the police in a business end manner (ie arrested).

Great, criminals would be caught more and easier. Also the conviction rate of rapists (currently about a tiddly 3%) would hopefully rocket if everyone was on the database. Success!

But with regards to all other kinds of crime, is it really needed?

"Bloody murder!" you might cry. Oh? A huge majority of murder victims knew they murderers - and since people linked with a victim are usually tested anyway if no culprit/motive is found, a database will do little benefit in the long run.

With aspects to all other crime, roughly 90% of crime is committed by about 10% of criminals. A lot of the time the police know their area so well that they can guess who did the deed.`

So, to summarise. A compulsory DNA database would mean a rise in criminal convictions, but if the database became public, millions of us would suffer higher insurance rates and discrimination. I personally favour a database, as long as an immutable law is set up to limit access to the database for the purposes of crime solving ONLY.