Forensic DNA Phenotyping: A Review in Korean Perspective

Forensic DNA phenotyping in Europe: views “on the ground” from those who have a professional stake in the technology

“…Second, whilst the heterogeneity of our interviewees' opinions about which phenotypic inference tests should or should not be considered under the remit of FDP makes it difficult to prescribe recommendations about a responsible regulatory framework with relation to this, our findings are instructive in that they highlight that attempts to draw boundaries around which FDP tests are permitted in terms of ethically disputed and non-disputed tests lack nuance (see also Seo et al 2017). This is not only because all tests, to a certain degree, can be perceived as ethically problematic, but also because, as we have shown, stakeholders prioritize different ethical issues as more or less valuable, and moreover, (some) different professional stakeholders have different views on the ethical utility of such tests.…”

“…We note three concerns here that are most prominently discussed in the literature. First, given that FDP tests are probabilistic, concerns have been raised about the nature of information FDP can provide, and the possibility of the predictive nature of the information being misunderstood (Cino 2017;Enserink 2011;Sankar 2012;Seo et al 2017;Toom et al 2016). These concerns are compounded by expectation-generating for-profit companies such as Parabon Nanolabs, which markets FDP as a technology capable of creating composite faces of individuals from a sample of DNA alone; often based on tests which are under developed, scientifically not documented, and un-validated (Gannon 2017;Wienroth 2018).…”

“…These same scholars, alongside others, have suggested that visible traits that are apparent to the naked eye are less "sensitive" to test for so that the visibility criterion could also be used as an "ethical boundary" (Murphy 2013; Smith and Urbas 2012). Seo et al (2017) states, for example, that FDP should be used "only for predicting features that are as perceptible as to human eyewitnesses by using only the markers that are completely free of any ethical disputes" (Seo et al 2017, 29). Similarly, Kayser and colleagues refer to FDP as a "biological eye witness" (Kayser 2015).…”

“…Similarly, while variations in the facial features of people might be perceptible to some people, they are not perceptible to others. In sum, Seo et al (2017) solution that FDP should only be used to predict features that "are as perceptible as to human eyewitnesses" is problematic in the sense that it is unclear against what criteria such "perceptibility" should be assessed.…”

Civil society stakeholder views on forensic DNA phenotyping: Balancing risks and benefits

“…These scholars highlight that FDP results are, by nature, always probabilistic and thus contain a level of uncertainty. Because probabilistic informationespecially, but not only, in the context of genetics is known to be difficult for human beings to grasp, there is the concern that the complexity involved in understanding this probabilistic nature of FDP may lead to police and justice officers' over-interpretation of the findings [33][34][35][36][37]. Such concerns, these critics say, are compounded by the fact that studies suggest people have greater trust in the scientific accuracy of forensic DNA technologies than other types of information and evidence in forensics and criminal investigationa phenomenon that has been termed 'CSI' effect (e.g.…”