Taking DNA from birth

TFleming

TFleming

TFleming

Associate
Joined
6 Feb 2009
Posts
2,127
Location
Redcar, Cleveland
I was listening to the radio the other day and they were talking about a recent effort by the Police which involved going door to door collecting DNA samples. This was in an effort to solve some serious crimes that occured before DNA was commonly used.

It reminded me of previous thoughts, where I've often wondered why governments don't take DNA samples from birth?

Of course it raises some ethical issues, but not only would it help prevent crimes (some, but of course not all), it could also branch further, into healthcare, for example. In the near future scientists expect to be able to fully map the genome, so the NHS could use these records to forewarn people of potential health risks, and so on.

What are your thoughts? Do you think this will happen in the future?
 
I don't think it will, but it could certainly have it's benefits.

Knowing who to vaccinate and where in the world they are, knowing who is susceptible to a specific flu outbreak and the ability to warn these people...

And then there's the legal point of view, crime "may" drop , as everyone would be profiled and therefore easily matched to a crime scene, the system would fall down where human error comes in...
 
I fail to see why anyone has a problem with the idea of a DNA database. How exactly can the government misuse that information I wonder? The benefits could be huge, especially in the areas of crime and medicine. It seems worthwhile to me.

But then I didn't get (besides costs) why ID cards were an issue. In a country suffering with so many illegal immigrants, ID cards seemed logical and consistent with many other nations.

I also think there should be an automatic paternity test for new children. All fathers deserve to know if the child is theirs before they invest money into them.
 
Because of recent laws they can only keep them for a certain amount of time, let me think on it. Can't remember the act.

e; Thompson don't you feel that's a bit of an invasion of privacy?

e2; http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/9/section/1 - There we go.

e3; What you're saying about looking at genes, this is already done however it is not economical for the NHS to do, you can pay to have it done but it is not something NHS will do currently. Angelina Jolie was in the media recently because she had it done and that led to her having a double mastectomy.
 
Last edited:
I think it has potential to be a great idea but the problem comes in the lack of ability to look after sensitive and personal data, something which the government and other agencies have been severely lacking in. The NHS computer system was largely a flop so don't know if people would trust them with that sort of information.

It also brings in security issues. If someone hacked the database and 'switched' your DNA record for someone who had committed major crimes you could be locked up but be completely innocent with little recourse because they have 'your' DNA at the crime scene. I know this is far fetched and potentially other checks and another DNA test could prove your innocence but the stigma attached to an arrest could be devastating to some people
 
DNA database from birth for serious crimes is a good idea.

Letting the NHS use this to inform of potential future illness etc is a disaster waiting to happen.

The world will suffer an outbreak of hypochondria and will also potentially lead to an increase in life expectancy and fewer deaths thus leading to an even greater strain of the worlds resources.

We are after all a cancer to this planet, lets not give the facility for the NHS to sprinkle miracle growth over us.
 
Last edited:
Obviously it would cost a huge amount of money, but it would be hard to say whether provention rather than cure would lead to it being cost effective in the long run.

I don't see how or why a government would misuse the information, of course there would be a mindfield of legislation around how it could be used anyway.
 
e; Thompson don't you feel that's a bit of an invasion of privacy?
Click to expand...

I cannot think of why it would be an invasion of privacy, no. In fact I'd welcome a method by which I can be uniquely identified.

Also, anyone with sufficient technical skill could surely follow me around collecting shed hair and skin cells to get my DNA couldn't they?

It also brings in security issues. If someone hacked the database and 'switched' your DNA record for someone who had committed major crimes you could be locked up but be completely innocent with little recourse because they have 'your' DNA at the crime scene. I know this is far fetched and potentially other checks and another DNA test could prove your innocence but the stigma attached to an arrest could be devastating to some people
Click to expand...

Would they not just check my DNA at the time to confirm it matches the one on record? And if they can hack the database to do that, can they not do the same already to just swap my name around on some stuff and give me a criminal record?
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
I fail to see why anyone has a problem with the idea of a DNA database. How exactly can the government misuse that information I wonder? The benefits could be huge, especially in the areas of crime and medicine. It seems worthwhile to me.
Click to expand...

Sell the information to third parties? Worse, lose the information to third parties? Just wait until insurance companies have access to our dna records and refuse/increase cost of insurance because you may match certain flagged profiles within your dna.
 
platypus said:
Sell the information to third parties? Worse, lose the information to third parties? Just wait until insurance companies have access to our dna records and refuse/increase cost of insurance because you may match certain flagged profiles within your dna.
Click to expand...

Surely governments would have laws in place to stop this kind of thing?
 
platypus said:
Sell the information to third parties? Worse, lose the information to third parties? Just wait until insurance companies have access to our dna records and refuse/increase cost of insurance because you may match certain flagged profiles within your dna.
Click to expand...

Well if the law prohibits them from selling my medical records now, why would they suddenly sell my dna? But so what if they did, what is some third-party going to do with my DNA? If it has my name attached to it, they will know what makes me unique and perhaps what diseases etc. I am prone to... so what?

Your comments on insurance company also seem a bit odd. Why should an insurance company NOT know if I am prone to certain diseases before costing my insurance? I mean, if I am prone to all sorts of horrible diseases, it just means all the other customers have to pay higher premiums for my sake. It seems a worthwhile thing to check. I don't want to pay extra on a PRIVATE medical insurance just because someone wants to lie to their insurance.
 
i5aces said:
The thing is that could change AFTER they have your DNA
Click to expand...

exactly. it'll happen nicely, slowly, gently, gently.... just because things are as they are now does not mean that won't change. I wouldn't trust half of them with a can of beans, let alone my genetic makeup

B@
 
B@Th*nG said:
exactly. it'll happen nicely, slowly, gently, gently.... just because things are as they are now does not mean that won't change. I wouldn't trust half of them with a can of beans, let alone my genetic makeup

B@
Click to expand...

Well let us ignore the fact they already have all sorts of information on you which they don't sell. Let us instead imagine that they do sell your DNA. What do you fear will come from this?
 
DNA is quite often used to exclude people from crimes, as well as including them, so it could be positive from that perspective. There are a few horror stories around of being falsely accused by DNA evidence though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom