MartinLuther

It's pattern matching. You think that the encoding is enough to break the link which it possibly is but once the database is set-up who's to say that future research won't change the encoding opening up a raft of possibilities.

MartinLuther

I would not assume that a run of the mill car mechanic who calls himself and expert knows more than a committed amateur.

Doesn't matter if you know more about the mechanics. It doesn't make you Nigel Mansell. The debate on this goes much further than how DNA fingerprinting works today.

MartinLuther

You said that wouldn't happen earlier. Also you modified your position on government abuse from "it'll never happen" to "they could do it so we should just bend over".

Nice. I'm an expert and therefore everyone else is wrong sounds like someone defending phlogiston to me.

Burbage

No. A DNA fingerprint contains only data from a series of microsatellite amplifications. Microsatellites are highly variable regions in junk DNA which are very unstable during meiosis, which makes them very good for identifying individuals in closely related groups, but they are a useless area of the genome for storing your genes, since any gene stored there would become inviable within fewer than five generations.

A DNA Finger print is a series of about 20 numbers. Enough to identify you to a level of about 1 in 100,000 or better, depending on the combination of those numbers that you have.

Your DNA fingerprint would appear in the database like this (very simplified), but in structure no different):

Name: MartinLuther
Residence: BE Australia
DNA Fingerprint: 12, 4, 16, 2, 6, 35, 10, 56, 2, 2, 4, 12, 9, 18, 20

Now if you can extract anything but identity and familialial relationship data out of that then you're someone I'd like to employ in cancer research.

Burbage

I didn't say it wouldn't happen. I pointed out at the very start that it is the only potential concern. It is a concern and if we restrict our discussion to this then we'll all get along.

On the other hand, paternity testing is available on the open market, so it seems unlikely that anyone would benefit greatly from the amount of work required to manage the database. Easier to open a lab and run a fresh set of PCRs for every client, which would also be legal.

MartinLuther

So it's encoded like I said.

So it's encoded like I said.

So it's used for patten matching like I said.

Burbage

And it contains no information that can be extracted for any other purpose, unlike what you said.

MartinLuther

Okay back to my original 4 points.

1) It's not accurate.

I think we're all agreed on this. We disagree that the perception may be a problem or not. As long as people don't succumb to the CSI effect it won't be a problem.

2) The government are crap at keeping people's personal details secret.

You countered that with it'll be the same as the current fingerprint database. This shows ignorance of the difference (from an IT point of view) between the current fingerprint database and a universal DNA database. If you are true to your own words, you need to choose options A) or B) at this point.

3) The government could misuse the data.

You said there was zero chance of this. Maybe they could not misuse the current data but as you confirmed they can do anything they like "these are the thing that give power to government". So what's to stop them changing the encoding of the DNA in the future to make it more useful? Nothing. You admit that there is the issue that this database could be used for paternity (which adds even more validity to point 2).

4) The government could abuse the data.

You said the same as point 3. The UK government abused the anti-terrorism laws to seize the assets of IceSave. I think there's more than a zero change of the government will abuse it.

Points 1, 3 and 4 are political. The fact that you are a mechanic gives your points no more validity than the rest of us. Point 2 is more technical but in IT not microbiology.

MartinLuther

If they change the encoding it could.

And you said it could be used for paternity. That sounds like another purpose.

Burbage

What do you mean "change the encoding"?

Precisely?

To address your points:

1. It is completely accurate for the elimination of suspects. A match can only be convicted along with other evidence. Worst case probability (1:100000) will secure a conviction in most cases, when other eveidence is taken into consideration.

2. No argument from here. But your medical records are far more likely to cause you problems than your DNA fingerprint. Also, you elected them.

3. Change the encoding? You still have to explain what you mean. The current system is fit for purpose, there is no need to change it. If you do change it you'd have to go back an retest everyone in the database. Which would be a stupid thing to do and of course everyone will know about it.

4. In what way? They could tell you that you aren't your father's son, that's about all. This is a concern. No question. s a reduction of crime and better detection of criminals worth it? The man from Del Monte says "Yes!"

Deancm

Increasing the risk of being caught will not prevent crime. It will still happen because people believe that they can get away with it. Most crooks aren't that smart. It certainly isn't going to stop professional murders or terrorist activities.

I would bet 90% of a jury wouldn't know that. DNA has been paraded as some sort of panacea against crime and this is what the uninformed believed. It all comes down to perception. If this person said that and this publicaton said this and the TV said that, then it must be true.

And then the prosecutor walks in his star eye-witness who states "I saw a person looking just like the offender committing the crime" (and we all know how many people look similar in this world) and together with the tenuos DNA evidence that coud be just enough to get a conviction.

In court, at the end of the day it doesn't matter how rock solid the evidence is. It all comes down to whether the defence or the prosecutor can make the most compelling/persuasive case. Or, how many cock ups the coppers have done in putting the brief together in the frst place. And believe me, the Police are very good at that, not to mention manipulating/manufacturing evidence.

MartinLuther

1. We're in agreement that it's not perfect.

2. Unless they've change it since I left, but the UK government didn't have access to my medical records. I'll have to check on the Aus position. You'll have to explain more as to why electing to have a doctor hold your medical records when you need them to is the same as the government forcing you to give up a DNA sample when you don't need to.

3. The current system is not perfect. Since they started using it they have been trying to improve it. I have no reason to believe that they are going to stop developing it. I find it hard to believe your assertion that they'll be happy with what they've got if they come up with better or more informative ways of encoding the data. If more informative means better evidence then they will use it. But along with more informative comes more information.

4. So you're saying it's good enough to narrow things down to a potential criminal but not good enough to narrow things down to a potential relation. How does that work? Actually You don't have to answer that question as you've moved away from the point. The point was that they could potentially use it for something else which you denied could happen and then you supplied an example of where it could.

Deancm

And that is exactly the point. Science is very black and white however whenever a human being puts his grubby fingers to something it becomes tainted.

In a perfect world, one where there was no corruption, there may be some merit in having a DNA database. However that is not the world we live in.

Deancm

Rape possibly yes, murder no.

MartinLuther

Further to the previous reply I took option A and it looks like the Aus government does not have access to your medical records (other than medicare info) but is trying to get more access.

As said previously the UK government didn't have access 5 years ago but I was working on stuff around the integration of medical records and there was a great debate about whether the government should have access. The general industry feeling was that they shouldn't.

Looks like you didn't take option A or B before giving your opinion on this.

It's a bizarre argument anyway. What you seem to be saying is that I should trust the government with my DNA because I shouldn't trust them with my medical records (i.e. that they can do more with my medical records than they can do with my DNA).