From Paul Stafford-Allen
Emma Riccobena presents something of an under-informed, alarmist take on issues surrounding the UK’s National DNA Database (3 October, p 29). As one of the “experts” to whom she refers, I would be delighted to respond.
Riccobena’s contention that a DNA database would lead to corrupt experts framing celebrities for money applies to any other evidence type, including eyewitness testimony and CCTV, and disregards the excellent work done by scientific experts – working for the defence, in many cases – who enforce the rigorous application of science.
One way to prevent the planting of genetic material that has been stolen from a DNA database is a comprehensive national database in which only the profile – not the genetic material itself – is stored. The use of new, more advanced profiling tests can future-proof such a database, eliminating the need for tissue retention for future re-sampling. Such profiles do not include information specific to race, appearance or any genetic conditions that could be abused by any hypothetical, future, dystopian government, eliminating many of the privacy concerns such proposals often attract.
Lastly, the trustworthiness of forensic experts of all kinds is one of the hot topics in the UK forensic science community. The Forensic Science Society works to ensure that people giving evidence in our courts are qualified and competent to do so.
Advertisement
Oxford, UK
