DNA Fingerprinting: Science, Law, and Privacy Concerns
This paper examines DNA fingerprinting from multiple angles, including its scientific basis, step-by-step collection and processing methods, the role of gel electrophoresis in DNA separation, and its use as evidence in criminal proceedings. Developed by Alec Jeffreys in 1985, DNA fingerprinting has become a powerful tool in law enforcement and paternity determination. The paper also engages the ethical and privacy dimensions of government-mandated DNA collection, arguing that while targeted DNA profiling of criminals, visa holders, and national security threats is justifiable, universal mandatory collection from law-abiding citizens raises serious concerns about government overreach, database security, and potential abuse of sensitive genetic information.
- Introduction: Scope of DNA fingerprinting topics addressed
- What DNA Fingerprinting Is and How It Works: Science, history, and processing methods of DNA fingerprinting
- Privacy Concerns and Government DNA Collection: Individual rights versus government DNA collection interests
- DNA as Legal Evidence and Its Limitations: How DNA functions as court evidence and its limits
- Who Should Be Required to Submit DNA: Proposed categories for mandatory DNA profiling
- Risks of Mass DNA Databases and the Case for Privacy: Dangers of universal databases and abuse potential
- Conclusion: Balancing DNA's benefits against risks of misuse
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its policy arguments in concrete scientific explanation, explaining PCR processing, centrifuge steps, and gel electrophoresis before moving to ethical debate — giving readers the context they need to evaluate the claims.
- It maintains a clear personal stance throughout while acknowledging counterarguments, such as the legitimate benefits of disease screening and national security profiling, which adds nuance to what could otherwise be a one-sided argument.
- The use of multiple academic sources across law, forensic science, medicine, and criminology demonstrates interdisciplinary engagement appropriate to the topic's complexity.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates policy-argument structuring built on a scientific foundation. Rather than treating the science and the ethics as separate discussions, the author uses each scientific fact — such as the near-zero probability of DNA duplication — to anchor a legal or ethical claim, such as why DNA constitutes strong but not absolute evidence in court. This technique of grounding normative claims in empirical premises is a hallmark of well-organized persuasive academic writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a brief statement of scope, then moves through a scientific explanation of DNA fingerprinting and electrophoresis, followed by a discussion of privacy concerns around government collection. It then addresses DNA's evidentiary role and limitations in court, proposes a tiered policy framework for who should be required to submit DNA, expands on the risks of mass databases, and closes with a conclusion that synthesizes the benefits-versus-abuse tension.
Introduction
The subject of DNA fingerprinting has become a prominent issue on several fronts. The applicable domains involved include law enforcement, privacy concerns, and immigration, among others. This paper addresses several key questions: what precisely DNA fingerprinting is, how it is performed, the step-by-step methods involved, how DNA is compared using gel electrophoresis (EPG), what EPG is, whether universal DNA fingerprinting for medical reasons is advisable, why DNA is considered potential evidence in a court of law, and whether the government should DNA-fingerprint the entire population to learn about disease propensity and other personal information. While DNA fingerprinting has and will continue to provide significant benefits, the privacy and other rights of those who would be fingerprinted are a valid and serious concern.
What DNA Fingerprinting Is and How It Works
DNA fingerprinting is the ability to link a piece of DNA found on a hair, in blood, or in some other bodily fluid or material to a specific person. The most common and well-known applications for DNA analysis are establishing paternity, connecting a person to a crime or crime scene, and screening for diseases and genetic traits such as cancer risk. DNA fingerprinting was developed by Alec Jeffreys in 1985. DNA is short for deoxyribonucleic acid. Except in the case of identical twins, every person's DNA is different, as the probability of two individuals sharing the same DNA profile is essentially zero (Funk & Wagnalls).
The three components of a DNA test are the collection of the sample, the processing of the sample, and the interpretation of the results. DNA can be extracted from a range of biological materials such as saliva, blood, semen, hair, muscle tissue, dandruff, and even fingerprints (Butler). Evidence must be collected and preserved prior to testing, and the sample can be smaller than what the naked eye can detect. The process of analyzing DNA can take several forms, but there is typically a consistent procedure. The material is collected and processed in a centrifuge, transferred to another tube, and then subjected to another centrifuge treatment. Following this, the PCR DNA test is performed (Butler). PCR DNA collection and analysis has been conducted both manually and digitally, in the past and in the present (Dietrich).
Gel electrophoresis, commonly referred to as EPG, is used to facilitate DNA separation so that it can be analyzed (Ghanim et al.). EPG is specifically designed to separate DNA, RNA, and proteins at the molecular level (Ai).
Privacy Concerns and Government DNA Collection
The prospect of the government requiring DNA profiles from people across the nation may sound beneficial on the surface, but it raises numerous privacy and civil liberties concerns. Many people hold that their body belongs to themselves (Kaye). This principle can be overridden when someone is under criminal or similar suspicion. However, there is also the risk of DNA being "harvested" through surreptitious means (Scherr). A similar situation can arise when the paternity of a child is in question and the prospective father refuses to voluntarily provide a sample.
It would be useful to screen individuals for diseases that are present or may develop in the future. Such screening could also help explain why racial disparities exist in health outcomes — for example, why minority populations experience higher rates of illness than non-minority populations (Gorman). Nevertheless, a compelling case can be made against consenting to government-mandated collection. If an individual wishes to know their own genetic details, they can consult a private physician and keep that information private. It is not the government's concern, and absent a criminal investigation or similar legal proceeding, the government has no legitimate need to possess that information.
Conclusion
DNA has emerged over the last thirty years as a powerful tool to help catch criminals and establish paternity — and sometimes maternity — of children. However, something so revealing and powerful can be easily abused and misused. To suggest that government agencies are above such tendencies is specious and plainly wrong; governments exceed appropriate boundaries regularly, and this includes district attorneys, child protection agencies, mental health agencies, and others. Nevertheless, whatever well-regulated and measured benefits can be responsibly required or offered to the public — with or without government involvement — should be seriously explored and carefully implemented.
Works Cited
Aarli, Ragna. "Genetic Justice and Transformations of Criminal Procedure." Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention 13.1 (2012): 3–21. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Ai, Bingjie, et al. "The Elimination of DNA From the Cry Toxin-DNA Complex Is a Necessary Step in the Mode of Action of the Cry8 Toxin." PLoS One 8.12 (2013): e81335. MEDLINE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Butler, John M. Forensic DNA Typing: Biology, Technology, and Genetics of STR Markers. Amsterdam: Elsevier Academic Press, 2005. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Dietrich, Dimo, et al. "Improved PCR Performance Using Template DNA From Formalin-Fixed and Paraffin-Embedded Tissues by Overcoming PCR Inhibition." PLoS One 8.10 (2013): e77771. MEDLINE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
"DNA Fingerprinting." Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia (2014): 1p. 1. Funk & Wagnalls New World Encyclopedia. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Ghanim, Motasem Hilmi, et al. "Low Electric Field DNA Separation and In-Channel Amperometric Detection by Microchip Capillary Electrophoresis." IET Nanobiotechnology / IET 8.2 (2014): 77–82. MEDLINE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Gorman, Bridget K., and Meredith Chu. "Racial and Ethnic Differences in Adult Asthma Prevalence, Problems, and Medical Care." Ethnicity & Health 14.5 (2009): 527–552. MEDLINE. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Kaye, David H. "Why So Contrived? Fourth Amendment Balancing, Per Se Rules, and DNA Databases After Maryland v. King." Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 104.3 (2014): 535–595. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Scherr, Albert E. "Genetic Privacy & the Fourth Amendment: Unregulated Surreptitious DNA Harvesting." Georgia Law Review 47.2 (2012): 445–526. Legal Collection. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Tammelleo, AD. "CA: Attempted Suicide Patient on 72-Hour Hold: Can Patient Sue Hospital for Negligence in Fall?" Hospital Laws Regan Report 43.12 (2003): 3. CINAHL with Full Text. Web. 14 Oct. 2014.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.