DNA Profiling Essay, Research Paper

The Positive And Negative Effects of DNA Profiling

Justin Broyles

Apr. 12, 1995

Justice Theory

Lance Miller

Genetic engineering has developed and blossomed at a frightening rate in

the last decade. Originating as merely an area of interest for scientists,

genetic engineering has now become an area of which all people should be

somewhat knowledgeable.

DNA profiling has many uses, both positive and negative, in our society.

Aside from its usefulness in many legal investigations, DNA profiling can be

used in the workplace to discriminate against employees whose profiles could

pose a financial risk. For example, genetic technology can and has been used to

determine the capacity of a person to contract certain diseases, such as sickle-

cell anemia, which could cause many employers to hesitate in the hiring and

training of such people. In the early 1970’s, the United States began a carrier

screening for sickle-cell anemia, which affects 1 in 400 African-Americans.

Many of those identified as carriers mistakenly thought they were afflicted with

this debilitating disease. Furthermore, confidentiality was often breached, and

in some cases, carriers were discriminated against and denied health insurance.

Nevertheless, genetic profiling has been beneficial in paternity suits and rape

cases, where the father or the assailant could be identified. However, despite

its growing number of utilizations, DNA profiling is extremely hazardous when

results are inaccurate or used to discriminate.

The frequency of genetic testing in criminal investigations (more than

1,000 in the U.S. since 1987) has been increasing dramatically despite the

inconclusive testing by the scientific community in many aspects of forensic

identification. A correlation between DNA patterns taken from a crime scene and

taken from the suspect has often been enough to charge a person with the offense

in spite of proof that some procedures for testing DNA are fallible by legal and

scientific standards.

The complexity of scientific evidence, especially DNA profiling, has

also caused many problems within the legal profession. It is no longer enough

for attorneys or members of the jury to merely be knowledgeable about the law.

People need to familiarize themselves with today’s scientific research rather

than relying on the credentials of a scientific expert witness. Too often, jury

members become in awe of the complicated, scientific terms used in court and

take a scientist’s testimony as fact. Lawyers need to increase their scientific

knowledge and keep up with ongoing research in order to competently question and

understand scientific evidence put forth.

But these do not represent the only possible downfalls of DNA profiling

in criminology. The involuntary seizure of one’s blood or hair undermines the

constitutional rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Fourth Amendment

(protection from unreasonable searches and seizures). Nevertheless, many argue

that a DNA sample taken from a suspect could lead to an indictment or release of

the individual and, thus, warrants an exception from the Fourth Amendment.

Besides, one could make a plausible argument that, once held in custody, the

seizure of a person’s strand of hair does not violate a suspect’s Fourth

Amendment rights or rights of privacy because the hair is visible.

However, the use of DNA profiling does not end in criminal

investigations. DNA testing has ventured out of the courtroom in an effort to

show a genetic link between race and violent tendencies. If successful, this

link will do nothing but justify prejudice attitudes toward minorities,

particularly the black race. Furthermore, such biological approaches towards

criminality do not take into account sociological factors, such as poverty, and

would inevitably lead to the practice of controlling minority children with the

use of therapeutic drugs or worse. For this and other reasons, courts of all

levels must implement harsher scrutiny in the area of genetic profiling and its

uses.

There is also a current effort to create a national database of DNA,

much like the existing database of fingerprints. Supposedly, the use of

numerical codes will allow huge databases to search for a match of a individual

DNA band. However, these matches are not 100 percent. This inconclusive

correlation between DNA patterns has led to a heated debate which has culminated

in federal court with Daubert vs. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. The ruling in

the Daubert case said that the acceptance by the scientific community is not

enough by itself to allow certain scientific techniques into court as evidence,

especially given the reality that a suspects entire future could hang in the

balance of a scientific finding.

Many people have argued that the use of a national DNA database

infringes on the individuals constitutional rights to privacy. However, law

officials have claimed that the advantages this database presents for society

supercede the individual’s rights. This dilemma can easily be associated to the

“social contract” presented by Thomas Hobbes. In this contract, Hobbes believed

that each individual should give up certain individual rights in order to

achieve protection from the whole. The forfeit of the right to privacy of one’s

DNA can thus be considered one of these forfeited rights. A person must weigh

the advantages of having a past, present, or future criminal’s DNA profile on

database with the disadvantages of having one’s own. But the disadvantages will

outweigh the advantages when private institutions develop access to this

database and use the information for discriminatory purposes.

The impending usage of a national DNA database poses many possible risks

of political and commercial abuse of such information, along with the danger

this information falling into the hands of unfriendly parties, are unpredictable.

Such unpredictability, certainly, is a violation of people’s rights to privacy.

For instance, if a private institution, such as a bank, an employer, or an

insurance company, receives access to this information, it could influence

decisions on loans, hiring practices, insurance rates, etc. Society, then, is

faced with a conflict between an individual’s right to privacy in one’s genetic

composition and the employer’s or insurance company’s interest in knowing about

a person’s health problems. This conflict will constitute the remainder of this

paper.

Over the next ten to fifteen years, scientists involved in the federal

government’s “human genome project” will try to identify in detail each of the

human cell’s estimated 100,000genes. The knowledge derived from the project

will enable physicians to detect an increasing number of diseases and

predispositions for diseases.

When Frank married at age 31, he decided to take out a life insurance

policy. A swimmer and avid racquetball

player with no previous hospitalizations, he felt certain his low premiums

would be a worthy investment for

his family. Weeks later, after a routine physical exam, he was shocked by

the insurance company’s response. Sophisticated DNA testing had revealed in

Frank’s tissues a single missing copy of a so-called RB antioncogene and minor

variations in two other genes.

Computer analysis showed the molecular misprints more than tripled his risk

of getting small-cell lung cancer by age 55. His application was rejected.

With the newfound ability to reveal an individual’s molecular secrets

come significant new possibilities for discrimination. The medical records of

people who apply for insurance are stored by the Medical Information Bureau, a

data bank shared by a consortium of hundreds of insurers. Ethicists warn that

genetic tests could tempt insurers to discriminate against the “healthy ill;”

people who are not yet sick but who carry genetic traits predisposing them to

future illness, such as in Frank’s case. However, these people may not be

denied health insurance totally. Rather, they may be guaranteed a basic level

of treatment and rationed out of more costly procedures. For example, someone

who carried the cystic fibrosis gene, even if asymptomatic, could be denied a

lung transplant. The competitive nature of the industry may compel insurance

companies to use genetic information, since the fundamental principle of the

insurance business is “pooling uncertainty.” The concept of adverse selection

also causes insurers much dismay. Adverse selection refers to the probability

that people privately aware of a medical problem are more likely to seek medical

insurance. This negates the insurers policy of setting premiums with accordance

to statistical information on the rates of illnesses and sicknesses in society.

“The whole foundation of insurance is based on the fact that we and the

insurance applicant are operating with equal levels of knowledge and ignorance.”

Without this level of ignorance, insurance companies will lose their social

value as a means of spreading risk across groups of people.

Genetic engineering with respect to insurance does not stop here.

Further development could lead to a complete knowledge of who will develop a

disease and when. This will drastically effect the practicality of life

insurance policies. “I can see 20 or 30 years from now that life insurance

policies will be essentially accident policies, because everything else will be

foreseeable. The essence of insurance is you assess a risk against the unknown;

if there’s no medical unknown, the only unknown is whether you’re going to get

hit by a bus.”

Another striking danger of insurance companies discriminating with

respect to a person’s DNA profile is with infants. The companies may become

extremely hesitant in insuring babies who have a high susceptibility to certain

diseases. In fact there have been some cases where the insurers actually

demanded the parents to abort the fetus or risk losing insurance. This

obviously constitutes a blatant violation of people’s rights. Plus, it

dangerously causes the insurance companies to begin to play the role of God,

that is, in deciding who should live and who should not. “By agreeing to pay

for some infants and not for others, insurance companies could inadvertently

practice a form of economic eugenics, based not on grand designs for a superrace

but on who requires the least expensive medical care.” Perhaps, some form of

national health insurance is the only remedy for these problems. “Genetic

testing may provide the best reason yet for a nationalized health-care policy.”

But insurance companies are not the only private entities with the

potential to discriminate against people with unfavorable genetic profiles.

Employers, too, have a substantial financial risk in hiring an employee with an

above average propensity for illness or early death.

Ellen spent four years completing her PhD in industrial and chemical

engineering. Now, wincing as a company

doctor drew a few drops of blood for her preemployment physical, she could

hardly contain her excitement about

the job she’d been offered at one of the country’s foremost metallurgical

research institutes.

Two days later the phone call came. You are perfectly healthy, the young

doctor said. But tests have revealed

you harbor a gene that can result in decreased levels of a blood enzyme,

glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase. Without the enzyme’s protection, you have a

slightly increased

risk of developing a red blood cell disease if you come into contact with

certain chemicals in our laboratory.

I’m sorry, he said. The job has been offered to someone else.

As Ellen’s case shows, the danger of discrimination certainly does not

end with health insurance. There is also a grave danger of discriminatory

hiring practices in the workplace. In 1989, Jonathan Beckwith, a geneticist at

Harvard, and Dr. Paul Billings, director of the division of genetic medicine at

Pacific Presbyterian Hospital in San Francisco, completed a small-scale study of

genetic discrimination. Of 55 responses, Billings and Beckwith could document

29 people who reported multiple instances of discrimination by adoption agencies,

employers and insurers. And the percentages will only get worse as more and more

companies implement genetic screening policies. In a survey of 400 U.S. firms

conducted in 1990, 15 percent of companies responded that by the year 2000, they

planned to check the health status of not only their prospective employees, but

their dependents as well before making a job offer. These statistics show all

too well the impending problem with genetic discrimination in the workplace.

Employers will have a number of potential justifications for genetic

testing in the workplace. In some cases, there may be an argument in favor of

testing for public health reasons. Fortunately, judges and juries have

predicted these justifications and have began to make the necessary rulings to

ensure true justification for discrimination. The relevant judicial opinions

indicate that there will have to be a significant or reasonable likelihood of

harm to others from having the individual employed. Hopefully, rulings such as

these will serve their purpose in protecting the right of all citizens.

With the balance of interests laid out (individuals concerned about

confidentiality and discrimination, and insurers and employers concerned about

adverse selection and fiscal liability), it will fall upon legislators and the

courts to define the proper use of genetic information. Policy makers will have

to confront an apparent discrepancy between the reality of genetic variability

and the democratic ideal that all citizens are “created equal.” The information

itself is not the problem. What matters is how the knowledge is used.

Scientific advancements are not to blame. “What science does is give society

opportunities. What we have to do is look at these opportunities and then set

up the constraints and the rules that will allow society to benefit in

appropriate ways.” Without the proper constraints, the price of glimpsing one’s

medical future is high indeed.

DNA profiling can be an extremely beneficial tool in the war against

crime. However, when used for discriminatory purposes, this tool becomes a

crime in itself. The ability to compare and contrast a person’s genetic code

with another should not be taken lightly, for with this great knowledge comes

great responsibility. If not used wisely, this ability of the few… will

develop into a disability for the many.

ENDNOTES

L.R., “One Worked; The Other Didn’t,” Science 5 Jan. 1990: 18.

William C. Thompson, “DNA Evidence in Criminal Law: New Developments,”

Trial August 1994: 37.

Thomas J. Mack, “Scientific Testimony After Daubert: Some Early

Returns from Lower Courts,” Trial August 1994: 25.

Thompson: 42.

Roger Lewin, “Limits to DNA Fingerprinting,” Research News 24 Mar.

1989: 1550.

Mack: 39.

Thompson: 47.

Thompson: 45.

Thomas Hobbes, “The Case Against Anarchy,” 1651: 158.

Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, AMA, “Use of Genetic Testing by

Employers,” JAMA 2 Oct. 1991: 1827.

Rick Weiss, “Predisposition and Prejudice,” Science

News 21 Jan. 1989: 40.

Shannon Browniee, “The Assurances of Genes,” U.S. News & World Report 23

Jul. 1990: 59.

Browniee: 57.

Renee Twombly, “The Wider Implications,” Patient Care 15 Sep. 1994:

20.

Browniee: 57.

Browniee: 57.

Weiss: 42.

Browniee: 58.

Browniee: 59.

Weiss: 40.

Browniee: 57.

Browniee: 58.

JAMA 2 Oct. 1991: 1827.

David Orentlicher, MD, “Genetic Screening by Employers,” JAMA 16 Feb.

1990: 1008.

Weiss: 40.

Weiss: 42.

AMA. “Use of Genetic Testing by Employers,” JAMA.

Oct 2, 1991: 1827-1830.

Beardsley, Tim. “Fatal Flaw,” Scientific American. Dec.

1991: 28-29.

Browniee, Shannon. “The Assurances of Genes,” U.S. News

& World Report. Jul. 23, 1990: 57-59.

Hobbes, Thomas. “The Case Against Anarchy,” Leviathan.

1651.

L.R. “One Worked; The Other Didn’t,” Science. Jan 5, 1990:

18.

Lewin, Roger. “Limits to DNA Fingerprinting,” Research News.

Mar 24, 1989: 1549-1551.

Mack, Thomas J. “Scientific Testimony After Daubert: Some

Early Returns from Lower Courts,” Trial. Aug. 1994: 23-31.

Orentlicher, David, MD. “Genetic Screening by Employers,”

JAMA. Feb 16, 1990: 1005-1008.

Robertson, John A. “Liberty and Assisted Reproduction,”

Trial. Aug, 1994:49-53.

Thompson, William C. “DNA Evidence in Criminal Law: New

Developments,” Trial. Aug, 1994: 35-46.

Twombley, Renee. “The Wider Implications,” Patient Care.

Sep 15, 1994: 20.

Weiss, Rick. “Predispostion and Prejudice,” Science News.

Jan 21, 1989: 40-42.