UK National DNA Database

From Open Encyclopedia

The United Kingdom National DNA Database (NDNAD; officially the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database) was set up in 1995. As of the end of 2005 it carries the profiles around 3.4 million people, over 585,000 of them taken from children aged under 16 ^{[{{fullurl:}}#endnote_fn1]}.

Only short tandem repeats are stored in the NDNAD - not a person's full genetic code. Because DNA is inherited, the database can also be used to indirectly identify many others in the population related to a database subject.

The NDNAD is run by the Forensic Science Service, an executive agency of the UK Home Office, for the Association of Chief Police Officers. Between April 1995 and March 2004, the database cost £182 million.[1]

1 Database subjects
2 Controversy and privacy concerns
3 See also
4 References

[edit]

Database subjects

Initially only samples from convicted criminals were recorded. Since the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, anyone arrested on suspicion of involvement in any recordable offence has their DNA sample taken and permanently stored in the database, whether or not they are subsequently charged or convicted. By September 2005 this had resulted in an extra 162,000 samples being stored, linked to 116 rapes and 96 murders¹.

[edit]

Controversy and privacy concerns

The UK DNA database is the world's largest, and has prompted concerns from some quarters as to its scope and useage. Changes in the powers of arrest granted to the police by the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 have led to expectations of even more samples being added.

The Black Police Association has called for an enquiry into why the database holds details of 37% of black men but fewer than 10% of white men. [2] A further concern has been raised over the 24,000 samples held of children and young people aged from 10 to 18 who have never been convicted, cautioned or charged with any offence. [3]

In November 2004 the Court of Appeal held that the keeping of persons charged, yet not convicted, was lawful. [4] As of January 2006 there has not yet been a test case on the keeping of samples from persons arrested but not charged.

Given the privacy issues, but set against the uncontested usefulness of the database in identifing offenders, some have argued for a system whereby the encrypted data associated with a sample is held by a third, trusted, party and is only revealed if a crime scene sample is found to contain that DNA. Such an approach has been advocated by the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, Alec Jeffreys. [5]

[edit]