DNA Databanks

[/]

Indeed, the DNA entry as it is placed into the actual databases does not seem to be any part of a human body. The modern method typically used by databanks is to first analyze the sample through any number of processes, transcribe the data to a DNA profile, then upload it digitally. The record itself is just ones and zeros.

[Serbia]

I was expecting this thread to contain pictures of scantily clad women. I'm disappointed.

Bollocks.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... let me ask the question a different way.

On the abortion v. DNA issue, the right to an abortion is not a right to an abortion. Instead, the government is not permitted to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with a fetus. It is a right to privacy. Similarly, the right to DNA would not be a right to DNA. Instead it would be that the government is not permitted to collect and/or use your DNA information. It is a right to privacy.

Make sense?

There are numerous pieces of information that are private, even from the government. Sexual orientation, for example, is a piece of information. Do you have the right to keep your sexual orientation private from the government?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?

-TG

[kentington]

Really? If a dog craps in my yard, big effin deal. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!

Depends on where you live. I live in an apartment and there are tons of apartments right here. People walk their dog just to crap on the lawn of others. Since there are a lot of people and only a little bit of grass there are times when it is really not pleasant. Sometimes I sit by the window in the morning and yell, "Pick up your CRAP!"
I hope they don't have a gun, but they usually walk back and pick it up.

Well, there you go. As I said in my post. It's one of those things that has been going on since man first domesticated the wolf! Deal with it!
You deal with it in your way. Yours happens to be confrontation of strangers. So now a DNA bank of everyone's dog is going to stop dogs from pooping? What if I poop in your friggin' yard? Hurry up and rush my shite to the human genome project?

I don't see why the majority of posters here are so quick to willingly let their DNA go to a DNA bank? If the DNA is being used for solving crimes, then call a judge, obtain a search warrant, and get your DNA sample. Oh yeah. The right to privacy doesn't exist anymore. Carry on.

I just wanted an excuse to let people know that I yell at strangers regarding poop.
I don't think the government should be allowed to keep my DNA, or a record of it.

But you give me an idea. Do you think if I poop in my own yard this will help me assume a role of dominance and scare the dogs away?

[Lil_SlimShady]

But you give me an idea. Do you think if I poop in my own yard this will help me assume a role of dominance and scare the dogs away?

Pee on the fire hydrant. They'll know what's up.

[BigBallinStalin]

So having a genetically inferior liver picked up by a DNA test equals driving like a maniac*?


* By that we're talking 30 over the speed limit with a rum and coke in one hand and a cel phone in the other, right?

There's genetic disposition, and then there's choices you make. I'm pretty sure we can figure out the difference between the two and still realize that a difference in the price of insurance makes sense.

[BigBallinStalin]

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

Freedom for the sake of freedom is stupid.

Of course, and I'd have a hard time arguing otherwise.

I'd be down for voluntary contracts, but in the current state of affairs--regarding prisons, yes convicted felons* should have their DNA stored somewhere. The same goes for fingerprints, and the benefits of that offset the costs, so why not have the same policy for DNA?

*I'd exempt certain kinds of felons.

[thegreekdog]

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?

-TG

Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.

[rdsrds2120]

Presumably, if you had the DNA of the actual felon before the sentencing instead of after, they probably wouldn't go to jail, or am I missing something?

BMO

[PLAYER57832]

Hmm... let me ask the question a different way.

On the abortion v. DNA issue, the right to an abortion is not a right to an abortion. Instead, the government is not permitted to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with a fetus. It is a right to privacy. Similarly, the right to DNA would not be a right to DNA. Instead it would be that the government is not permitted to collect and/or use your DNA information. It is a right to privacy.

There is no absolute right to privacy under the law. Many people think there is (frankly surprised that you might be among them). Instead, there is a patchwork of laws about various aspects of privacy. The internet is currently voiding any protection from many of those things... aka the streisand bit.

Make sense?

I was talking the law, not sense! Ok, could not resist.. I so rarely get the chance to make a quip

There are numerous pieces of information that are private, even from the government. Sexual orientation, for example, is a piece of information. Do you have the right to keep your sexual orientation private from the government?

It actually depends on the circumstances. Up until a couple of years ago, for example, soldiers had absolutely no right to keep that private.. or even to act upon that. In many areas, admitting to being homosexual would place your teaching job in jeopardy, though the places where that is true is shrinking.

I actually think we need a constitutional amendment about privacy... protecting our body images, in particular, and certain other normally private settings (inside one's house, for example) from use by others without our permission. However, that right doesn't exist... at least yet.

I am definitely not arguing what I think should be the case with DNA, I am just saying what is, now.

[thegreekdog]

Hmm... let me ask the question a different way.

On the abortion v. DNA issue, the right to an abortion is not a right to an abortion. Instead, the government is not permitted to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with a fetus. It is a right to privacy. Similarly, the right to DNA would not be a right to DNA. Instead it would be that the government is not permitted to collect and/or use your DNA information. It is a right to privacy.

There is no absolute right to privacy under the law. Many people think there is (frankly surprised that you might be among them). Instead, there is a patchwork of laws about various aspects of privacy. The internet is currently voiding any protection from many of those things... aka the streisand bit.

Make sense?

I was talking the law, not sense! Ok, could not resist.. I so rarely get the chance to make a quip

There are numerous pieces of information that are private, even from the government. Sexual orientation, for example, is a piece of information. Do you have the right to keep your sexual orientation private from the government?

It actually depends on the circumstances. Up until a couple of years ago, for example, soldiers had absolutely no right to keep that private.. or even to act upon that. In many areas, admitting to being homosexual would place your teaching job in jeopardy, though the places where that is true is shrinking.

I actually think we need a constitutional amendment about privacy... protecting our body images, in particular, and certain other normally private settings (inside one's house, for example) from use by others without our permission. However, that right doesn't exist... at least yet.

I am definitely not arguing what I think should be the case with DNA, I am just saying what is, now.

Again, it's not a right to privacy that's protected; it's a protection from the government in using information against you. But I generally agree with your comments.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?

-TG

Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.

Something along the lines of what rds posted. Probably the logistics are beyond my understanding, and it may or may not be feasible. That's not to say I'm in favor of databanks (at least mandatory, as I'm pretty much always against any form of coercion), as I'm sure the information can be used for nefarious means, as you've said.

But anytime forensics stuff is kept it's a functional database, if inefficient. And like I said, I'm not sure you 'own' your DNA. Equating the fetus analogy with DNA is imo irrelevant. DNA may define you as an organism, but it's the vehicle for species propagation. Therefore, does DNA belong to H. sapiens as a whole or to the individual?

-TG

[nietzsche]

DNA is largely considered to be the most consistently accurate form of evidence currently used. As such, it holds considerable value to law enforcement agencies throughout the modern world.

Previously focusing on convicted serious felony offenders such as rapists and murderers, in many places its use has spread to include anyone placed under arrest for any reason, a standard procedure similar to fingerprinting.
The United Kingdom National DNA Database was estimated as having 5,950,612 individuals registered by March 2012, nearly 10% of their population and growing by 30,000 each month since.

DNA evidence has not only been used to confirm guilt, but has also helped exonerate many wrongly accused inmates.
http://www.aclu.org/capital-punishment/ ... th-penalty

On the other hand, critics bring up how DNA can potentially be used for discriminatory purposes, markers can indicate behavioral traits and disease risks.

Now the U.S. Supreme Court is holding a hearing on the constitutionality of DNA swabs; millions of entries could be destroyed, and thousands of cases could potentially be overturned.

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/26/172886713 ... nstitution

Except that it's the government who has access to this information and no matter how many cost-benefit arguments, how many wacko conspiracy-theory-believer looks i get, the powerful will always abuse their power.

In fact, a tiny device in our hearts that would respond to a central remote could stop killers once it's been detected they murdered someone, it would be real cheap in comparison to trying to finding them. We should all get this tiny device in the case we decide to become murderers later in life.

Sometimes ridiculous exaggerations are necessary to show a point.

What if instead of reacting to the fear the government and media feeds us 24/7 we make a decision to be nicer to people and simply change the world little by little, a person at a time? At this rate, we are going to want a safe room inside our bulletproof house, a bulletproof car, a bulletproof suit to go to work, and eventually, when the technology is available, an invisible shield to protect us from everyone.

I haven't been watching news for some time now, but yesterday I was at my mom's and she wanted to see the news channel. Milenio Noticias is called. Anyway, the second news report I got to see was this: "A young man declared himself innocent of having raped a girl in some Asiatic country." . There was nothing else in the report that was particularly relevant. I couldn't believe it. Why is it relevant to watch in Mexico? Because it sells, because it's what people is addicted to hear. Rape. "huuuh the world is going crazy uhhhh".

Yes, let's go nuts giving the government the control of mythosis as well, in case we get in a shortage of food and need people to stay slim.




(inb4 some biology geek tells me that the cells are the same #, only they are bigger or smaller)

[PLAYER57832]

Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.

It could if the DNA found matches someone else. Mostly, though, it will be used to convict people who might otherwise not be found, not to confirm the innocent. (as I am sure you are aware)

When people are falsely convicted, it is usually becuase someone in the investigation basically assumes they already know who is guilty and doesn't do a thorough search for the real evidence. Sometimes its just sloppiness, sometimes prejudice and sometimes actual fraud becuase they fear reprecussions if someone is not found guilty. More rarely, lab data is falsely identified. If collecting DNA were more standard, then its possible that more people will be found innocent. However... I am not sure that will really fix any of the above reasons. And, it won't fix the false positive from improper lab data. (though you could argue making DNA more standard will minimize those errors). IN some cases, the evidence for innocence really exists already, but no one bothered to track it. That is why groups like the innocense project can get cases overturned, its mostly not because they find truly new evidence, its because they find evidence that investigators really should have found had they tried.

So, while DNA is proving very helpful, it is not necessarily the panacea some wish to believe.. and it very much could be fraught with many pitfalls.

[PLAYER57832]

Except that it's the government who has access to this information and no matter how many cost-benefit arguments, how many wacko conspiracy-theory-believer looks i get, the powerful will always abuse their power.

The problem with blaming the government as the ultimate bad guy is that democracies are, ultimately controlled by the people.. imperfectly and slowly (takes time, even a generation to really change the status quo). Corporations, to contrast are controlled solely by profit. And, many corporations are not as powerful or more powerful than most governments.

Take BP, for example... there is a very good argument that it is actually more powerful than the US, though it currently finds it expedient to stay within US laws, for the most part (also note having more power does not necessarily mean more guns... it means more money and attorneys). Anyway, BP is no currently involved in DNA stuff, so you might say that is irrelevant, but it is relevant to the point that we have a lot more to fear than government power. WE are the government. I can say nothing about BP, but I can have a say in our government, even though I am not wealthy or powerful.

[BigBallinStalin]

Something along the lines of what rds posted. Probably the logistics are beyond my understanding, and it may or may not be feasible. That's not to say I'm in favor of databanks (at least mandatory, as I'm pretty much always against any form of coercion), as I'm sure the information can be used for nefarious means, as you've said.

But anytime forensics stuff is kept it's a functional database, if inefficient. And like I said, I'm not sure you 'own' your DNA. Equating the fetus analogy with DNA is imo irrelevant. DNA may define you as an organism, but it's the vehicle for species propagation. Therefore, does DNA belong to H. sapiens as a whole or to the individual?

-TG

Hm? You own your own person; therefore, you own your own DNA. If we can admit that my dick is a "vehicle for species propagation," does this mean that everyone owns my dick? (Reductio ad absurdum)

The H. sapiens as a whole can't own anything because it is not a single, decision-making entity, and the H. sapiens as a whole is composed of individuals; that's it.

[Neoteny]

I don't know if it matters to anyone's opinion, but, fwiw, the sections of DNA used for matching are generally non-coding.

[nietzsche]

I don't know if it matters to anyone's opinion, but, fwiw, the sections of DNA used for matching are generally non-coding.

i know what you mean of course.... but for those who don't, explain

[Neoteny]

Assuming that not much has changed since I learned about it, DNA matching uses regions of DNA called short tandem repeats. These are segments of short repeating sequences of nucleotides (for example, gagagaga) that everyone has, but there are variations in the number of repeats. Say, a quarter of the population has four 'ga' clusters in a row, another quarter has five, and another quarter six, etc. The more of these you use from different locations in the genome, the more you narrow the odds that two samples were obtained from two separate people.

Since they are often nonsensical genetically, their usefulness in actual genes is limited (I guess they could be filler in some cases), so they are generally found in the "junk DNA." For a database purely for identification purposes, you would only need the commonly used sequences for the most part, so people worried about genetic profiling may or may not be mollified by that knowledge. The hard part, of course, is trusting the government or other companies to limit themselves to only the relevant information.

[thegreekdog]

I voted no one because, unlike the rest of you, I'm not a facist.

So then what about cases where people have been falsely convicted and are later vindicated through DNA evidence? The original DNA must be stored and entered into a database. I can think of very few worse crimes than being falsely imprisoned.

And, do you really own your DNA? I don't know.

-TG

How does a DNA databank solve that problem?

If a woman owns the fetus inside of her, I certainly own my DNA.

So then you're opposed to already existing data banks?

-TG

Yes, but I'd like you to answer the question (not meant to be snarky). There are criminals who were falsely convicted and then exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does a DNA databank stop innocent people from being convicted now? I'm seriously asking.

Something along the lines of what rds posted. Probably the logistics are beyond my understanding, and it may or may not be feasible. That's not to say I'm in favor of databanks (at least mandatory, as I'm pretty much always against any form of coercion), as I'm sure the information can be used for nefarious means, as you've said.

But anytime forensics stuff is kept it's a functional database, if inefficient. And like I said, I'm not sure you 'own' your DNA. Equating the fetus analogy with DNA is imo irrelevant. DNA may define you as an organism, but it's the vehicle for species propagation. Therefore, does DNA belong to H. sapiens as a whole or to the individual?

-TG

My understanding, based primarily on fictional television shows, is that DNA evidence is collected from the accused and DNA evidence is collected from the crime scene and these two are compared. If it doesn't match, exoneration; if it matches, prosecution.

[thegreekdog]

Assuming that not much has changed since I learned about it, DNA matching uses regions of DNA called short tandem repeats. These are segments of short repeating sequences of nucleotides (for example, gagagaga) that everyone has, but there are variations in the number of repeats. Say, a quarter of the population has four 'ga' clusters in a row, another quarter has five, and another quarter six, etc. The more of these you use from different locations in the genome, the more you narrow the odds that two samples were obtained from two separate people.

Since they are often nonsensical genetically, their usefulness in actual genes is limited (I guess they could be filler in some cases), so they are generally found in the "junk DNA." For a database purely for identification purposes, you would only need the commonly used sequences for the most part, so people worried about genetic profiling may or may not be mollified by that knowledge. The hard part, of course, is trusting the government or other companies to limit themselves to only the relevant information.

I don't trust the government or private companies.

Just imagine if Facebook and Twitter had your DNA. Just imagine if the FBI and NSA, who are about to start using drones to spy on you, had access to your DNA. It's not difficult to make the leap that they would use your DNA information in ways you would not like. Thus, violating your privacy (although Facebook and Twitter are under no constitutional obligation not to violate your privacy).

[Neoteny]

I agree. But I'm sort of hoping they'll use my DNA to create mutant super-soldiers. Or sex slaves. Either way.

EDIT: I now have a new sexual fixation. I want to watch videos of myself having sex with strangers, but without personally doing the deed. We need to get to work on this cloning thing.

[AndyDufresne]

I agree. But I'm sort of hoping they'll use my DNA to create mutant super-soldiers. Or sex slaves. Either way.

EDIT: I now have a new sexual fixation. I want to watch videos of myself having sex with strangers, but without personally doing the deed. We need to get to work on this cloning thing.

I wonder if identical twins, say separated at birth so they would have no idea, would have a similar interest. Maybe. I think the moral of the story is more research needs to be done. And more twins separated for later purposes.


--Andy

[thegreekdog]

I agree. But I'm sort of hoping they'll use my DNA to create mutant super-soldiers. Or sex slaves. Either way.

EDIT: I now have a new sexual fixation. I want to watch videos of myself having sex with strangers, but without personally doing the deed. We need to get to work on this cloning thing.

Is having sex with your clone illegal?