Forensic DNA phenotyping and its politics of legitimation and contestation: Views of forensic geneticists in Europe

Abstract

Forensic DNA Phenotyping (FDP) is a set of techniques that aim to infer externally visible characteristics in humans – such as eye, hair and skin color – and biogeographical ancestry of an unknown person, based on biological material. FDP has been applied in various jurisdictions in a limited number of high-profile cases to provide intelligence for criminal investigations. There are on-going controversies about the reliability and validity of FDP, which come together with debates about the ethical challenges emerging from the use of this technology in the criminal justice system. Our study explores how, in the context of complex politics of legitimation of and contestation over the use of FDP, forensic geneticists in Europe perceive this technology’s potential applications, utility and risks. Forensic geneticists perform several forms of discursive boundary work, making distinctions between science and the criminal justice system, experts and non-experts, and good and bad science. Such forms of boundary work reconstruct the complex positioning vis-à-vis legal and scientific realities. In particular, while mobilizing interest in FDP, forensic geneticists simultaneously carve out notions of risk, accountability and scientific conduct that perform distance from FDP’ implications in the criminal justice system.

External visible characteristics prediction through SNPs analysis in the forensic setting: a review

“…For instance, one of the main points under discussion is that information deriving from this technique does not identify a single or specific person (the potential suspect) but a cluster of individuals sharing similar visible traits, which leads to both legal and ethical concerns, such as the unfeasibility of massively screening the whole suspect population, or the risk of generating racial prejudice and stigmatization. In this framework, there is a need for further discussion regarding not only FDP applications and utility, but also related risks and, moreover, there is a need for new laws, especially considering that only a few countries have already enacted specific legislation on the matter, while in most other countries a legal vacuum exists or these techniques are specifically forbidden [124].…”

Ethics as Lived Practice. Anticipatory Capacity and Ethical Decision-Making in Forensic Genetics

“…Finally, each of these technologies is currently at different life stages. Forensic DNA phenotyping, although still the subject of complex politics of legitimation and contestation [20][21][22][23], is currently regulated and applied in some countries such as Slovakia and Germany. Forensic genetic genealogy is under intense scrutiny in many jurisdictions and upcoming regulation can be expected (see for example recent initiatives in the USA and in Australia).…”

Integrity, Trustworthiness, and Effectiveness: Towards an Ethos for Forensic Genetics

“…In addition, while some questions of professional ethics may be currently addressed in respect of research, the same cannot be said for case work, which, if governed at all, is mostly done via tenuous legal regimes and voluntary codes of conduct [ 31 ]. Forensic geneticists thus must continue to individually navigate divergences between science and (criminal) justice, as well as expertise and non-expertise, [ 32 ], engage in ethical boundary-work [ 33 , 34 ], and continue in their efforts to proactively build a community [ 35 ].…”