Genetic Witness
Jay Aronson, in his book, ‘Genetic Witness: Science, Law, and Controversy in the Making of DNA Profiling’, writes about the history of DNA profiling as scientists, notaries, and law enforcement clashed between approval of, and challenges to the technology in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Jay Aronson is an Associate Professor of History at Carnegie Mellon University, located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His research and writing center on the political as well as legal history of genetic identification. Aronson’s prior works on DNA profiling all come into view as a build up to the concerns he presents in ‘Genetic Witness’. His previous works include a number of articles; ‘The Starch Wars and the Early History of DNA Profiling’, ‘DNA Fingerprinting on Trial: The Dramatic Early History of a New Forensic Technique’, ‘Technologies of Justice: The Emergence of a Fundamental Right to Post-Conviction’ and ‘History of DNA Typing’.
DNA profiling developed at the same time in both the UK and USA; in the early 1980s. Alec Jeffreys, a British genetic specialist, who discovered the procedure, came upon this invention by chance. DNA profiling was first promoted by the private industry, with the two main corporations, Lifcodes and Cellmark, using modified variants on the procedure. Nonetheless, the scientific community did not have the capacity to assess the validity of these procedures as they depended on statistical data that was held by both companies as proprietary information. Aronson is concerned that the accuracy of scientific procedures is usually disputed by scientists through peer reviews prior to them being held out to the world as techniques that are proven. In this regard, DNA profiling is distinctive as it was not first subjected to scientific peer reviews before being introduced in criminal proceedings.
Tests of the dependability of DNA profiling were initially brought by defense lawyers in Frye hearings, instead of being subjected to peer reviews. A Frye hearing is an evidentiary proceeding wherein the judge puts into consideration the scientists’ general acceptance of a given scientific procedure and establishes the procedure’s dependability as evidence in a court of law. During these proceedings, scientists fought over the procedures’ validity and their general approval by the scientific community. Nevertheless, Aronson states that a good number of the scientists were member of staff of or linked to the firms that promoted the use of DNA profiling. He disapproves of these early Frye hearings wherein many scientists considered the technology to be scientifically acceptable when comprehensive peer review was unachievable. The DNA evidence was admitted into court severally as a result of these proceedings. However, these conflicts ultimately caused the companies to release their statistical data and led the scientific community to review DNA profiling.
Thereafter, interested parties sought the supervision of the government in the industry. Whereas a number of scientists were of the view that the Federal Bureau of Investigation should take the oversight role, others believed that the role would be better suited for a non-law enforcement body. In 1988, about one year after the private firms began to offer DNA profiling, the Federal Bureau of Investigation started providing law enforcement along with DNA profiling services. The law enforcement body informally assumed responsibility of the technology introducing a set of voluntary rules and instructions. These actions were disapproved by the defense community for the reason that the FBI keenly sought to leave out non-forensic experts from the decision making process. Although Aronson generally supports the role of the FBI, he also criticizes their approach since its method would be peer reviewed only by those who took part in its development. This would imply that complete peer review had still not been achieved.
After the Federal Bureau of Investigation gained control of the market, the controversy about DNA profiling did not end. It was branded “the DNA wars”, and the FBI along with the scientific community came to an agreement on the proper method of computing population substructure; the groupings within racial categories. These groups are essential in DNA profiling as they are used to calculate the probability that one’s DNA will indiscriminately match the DNA of another person belonging to the same racial sub-grouping. In the perspective of the Frye hearings disputing this issue, Aronson illustrates the dispute over whether the procedure introduced by the FBI was accepted by the scientific community. He analyzes this debate as it unfolded in the courtroom as well as in scientific journals. He points to a scientific debate that transpired in ‘Science’, a scientific journal, which still did not put an end the dispute.
In April of 1992, the National Research Council (NRC) published a report scrutinizing DNA profiling in an effort to end the debate. Despite the fact that most of the results in the report were accepted, the report came up with a “ceiling principle” for computing the probability of an arbitrary match in a racial grouping that was disapproved as both unreasonable and pointless. According to Aronson, the concerned parties were generally puzzled about the impact of the National Research Council report as well as its use in legal proceedings. The debate forged ahead as the FBI called for the NRC to agree to its standards. The following year, the NRC published another report approving most of the interpretations of the FBI. Although this report was disparaged for being biased, it contributed to the conclusion of the DNA wars. In Aronson’s perspective, the authors who put together the second report of the NRC were “stacked” by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, whereas the initial NRC report was put together by experts representing varied interests, a point he considers is in contradiction to general scientific principles. In spite of this, the DNA identification Act came into force in 1994. The Act required that the national DNA data bank be established and the FBI set up an advisory board which would provide direction on carrying out DNA profiling.
Aronson acknowledges a number of other factors for putting the DNA wars to an end. In the case of Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the Supreme Court stated a new standard that would be used to test the acceptability and credibility of scientific evidence. In Aronson’s opinion, Daubert is less strict than the preceding Frye standard. Hence DNA evidence would almost always be admitted. The O.J. Simpson murder trial presented another drift to the controversy. Two of Simpson’s defense attorneys were among those who had initiated to a great extent, the legal challenges surrounding DNA evidence. They chose not to dispute the dependability of DNA profiling during their client’s trial. Instead, they confronted the police department for botching the evidence. Aronson perceives this approach as a dramatic alteration in the recognition of DNA evidence in criminal trials with several defense lawyers following suit. Ultimately, the DNA wars came to an end when a new procedure referred to as short tandem repeat analysis was developed. The procedure has a considerably less margin of error than that of preceding methods as it is highly computerized.
Although DNA profiling is far better than it was initially, I agree with Aronson that problems still persist to the present day. There are numerous cases of lab technicians failing to follow proper procedures or manipulating data deliberately to achieve a desired outcome. Aronson has a skeptical standpoint and he presents the controversial history of a technology that many do not consider contentious. Aronson enumerates the interested parties and explains comprehensively how each one contributed to the development of DNA profiling. Genetic Witness can be read and understood even by non-technical readers as the author uses simple language and often explains his scientific discussions in layman’s language.
The author of Genetic Witness has an alarmist tone. He focuses more on the problems around the development of DNA profiling and less on the notable successes. The content of this book is of value in my Microbiology studies as it helps me to understand the history and the issues that surrounded DNA profiling. It also brings into perspective the societal and ethical issues that pertain to the technology.
I find it disturbing that a number of forensic lab workers in police departments, even to this day, openly show contempt for defense experts, almost as if they are of the opinion that defendants do not have a right to be represented by a defense team. Aronson did not address this concern of integrity and unprejudiced expert witness testimony yet, without truthful and unbiased expert witnesses, the juries cannot expect to make just and impartial deliberations.
Everyone who works in diagnostic or forensic labs is aware that oversight and honesty are critical for good work and to gain the trust of the public. Aronson does not comment on the education and training of the forensic experts. Even though there are undeniably high standards and guiding principles for the education as well as training requirements of lab experts of forensic DNA science, no national licensing requirement that entails a national examination are in place.
Although Aronson briefly analyzes some of the modern PCR-based recognition of genetic variants for instance short tandem repeats, he does not review a number of other new technologies like single-nucleotide polymorphism detection and mtDNA analysis. The results of DNA examination using these other techniques can also be challenging and contentious, particularly with regard to DNA-mixture analysis and examination of trace samples. Consequently, Genetic Witness will be of less practical importance to those who want to understand modern methods and practices used universally to test for DNA-based forensic identify. Nonetheless, the book doubles as an invaluable guide for individuals who want to become acquainted with some of the societal and legal history regarding early use of DNA profiling in courtrooms.
References
Aronson, J. D. (2007). Genetic witness: science, law, and controversy in the making of DNA profiling (illustrated ed.). New Jersey, USA: Rutgers University Press.
