If you were born in California after 1965, the state most likely has your DNA on file in accordance with state law.
Except in cases of strong religious objection, a small blood sample is collected from each baby born in California. The sample is then screened for serious disorders only detectable in infants via DNA analysis. After screening, the baby’s blood is stored in a secure state database for an indefinite amount of time, with access allowed only for approved research purposes, said Linda McCabe, an associate professor in human genetics and an associate at the UCLA Center for Society and Genetics.
The newborn screening blood bank is one of many growing genetic databases that sit at the increasingly relevant intersection of genetics and public policy, McCabe said. It is an intersection, she said, that requires an informed and discerning public eye.
One aspect of this controversial topic, near-match DNA forensics, was debated Sunday, Jan. 25 in Covel Commons when the Center for Society and Genetics held a symposium titled, “Guilt by Association: Searching for Suspects through Familial Forensic DNA.”
When a crime scene yields hair, blood, semen or any other DNA sample, investigators run it through databases with the hope of a complete match to the DNA of an individual on record.
Arguments surrounding issues of privacy arise when a scan only returns a near match, said Dr. Edward McCabe, a co-director of the Center for Society and Genetics and executive endowed chair of pediatrics at the Mattel Children’s Hospital.
“Near-match DNA forensics means that I’ve got a match that’s really close ““ but it’s not absolute,” McCabe said. “But it’s close enough that it makes me suspect that this person in the database is a near relative of the person whose sample I have from the evidence.”
Proponents of familial DNA usage argue that when law enforcement officials can trace a line from a DNA near match to a potential crime suspect through a family tree and that connection can serve as a valuable piece of evidence in a criminal investigation, McCabe said. He added that near matches only provide investigators with a lead and do not definitively settle criminal cases.
McCabe said that investigators rarely find the true relative of a criminal suspect on their first try though, often interviewing several near matches who have no relation to the suspect before getting it right.
Opponents of familial DNA forensics call this an unfair invasion of privacy, McCabe said.
They also find fault in the scope of forensic DNA databases, which usually only hold samples from felons, said Norton Wise, a history professor and the co-director of the Center for Society and Genetics.
“There’s a tremendous prejudice built into the database,” Wise said.
“Such a vast proportion of people in prison, for instance, are black. So that puts black people at much higher risk than white people for investigation.”
In the world of medical genetics, the fateful day when companies will catalogue any willing customer’s full genetic sequence for less than $1,000 is not far off, Linda McCabe said. There will be pros and cons to a world where a patient’s genome is commonplace on his or her medical records, she said.
People worried about familial genetic predispositions to certain diseases may find comfort or distress from genetic testing, McCabe said.
“If you could just imagine the relief they would feel if they knew … they didn’t have the same gene change that their affected relative had,” she said.
McCabe said that if people are deemed highly likely by genetic testing to develop a disease such as cancer, small businesses or insurance companies may be tempted to drop their coverage.
The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or GINA, which President Bush signed into law in May of 2008, was a first step in safeguarding genetic privacy, McCabe said.
While the law prohibits discrimination based on a person’s genetic information in most situations, it does not protect those in the military, the disabled, long-term care patients or people seeking life insurance.
Jennifer Truong, a third-year American literature and cultures student and an officer of the Society and Genetics Undergraduate Organization, said she was drawn to the joint topic of genetics and society because of its complexity.
The use of genetics requires thoughtful attention from all citizens, she said.
“All of the issues that are coming up ““ none of it is black and white,” Truong said.
“If we commit to it as an issue that is either right or wrong, … we end up creating more mistakes than if we would go about this and accept that this is a really, incredibly complicated issue.”