Minutes of the meeting held on 25th September 2006
Wed, 6 June 2007
NUFFIELD COUNCIL ON BIOETHICS WORKING GROUP ON FORENSIC USE OF BIOINFORMATION: ETHICAL ISSUES
Minutes of the 1st meeting held on 25th September 2006
PRESENT: Professor Bob Hepple (Chair), Professor Søren Holm, Professor Andrew Read and Robin Williams.
SECRETARIAT: Dr Carole McCartney (Project Manager), Professor Sandy Thomas and Harald Schmidt
APOLOGIES: Graham Cooke, Professor Graeme Laurie and Dr Bronwyn Parry
Introduction
1 The Chair welcomed the Working Group to the first meeting and introduced Dr Carole McCartney, the Project Manager.
2 Professor Hepple explained that the Council had agreed to keep the Working Group small compared with some of the Council’s Working Parties that had produced large reports in the past. The aim of this group was to produce a shorter ‘discussion paper’. Furthermore, the topic was regarded as sufficiently discrete that it could be accomplished in one year. It was believed that there was relevant expertise among the Working Group, and that if additional expert evidence was required, this could be sought.
3 The meeting commenced with a wide-ranging discussion about the scope of the intended inquiry and resulting discussion paper.
Terms of Reference
4 The Terms of Reference that had been proposed by the Council were discussed. It was asked how far into the future the inquiry intended to consider developments. While it was clear that future developments could indeed alter the potential ethical and legal issues to be considered, at this point the inquiry should concentrate upon what scientists and other experts were suggesting was likely to happen in the next few years.
5 A couple of alterations to the wording of the Terms of Reference were suggested and it was agreed that the amended version would be submitted to the Council for formal approval at its meeting in October.
Focus of the Working Group
6 The Chair initiated discussion on the intended scope of the discussion paper and what types of bioinformation should be considered. The Working Group decided to consider those instances where bioinformation was used to ascertain whether a person was at a particular place (and in some instances, what they may have done at that place), otherwise known as ‘trace biometrics’.
7 The members agreed that the discussion paper should make clear that while there are wider uses for and differing types of bioinformation, this Working Group would focus upon those most commonly used in law enforcement and which raised ethical issues. This would narrow the focus of the inquiry to forensic DNA, fingerprints and to a lesser extent, footprints.
8 It was agreed that current procedures and regulatory frameworks should be considered, in particular, the Council of Europe recommendations on the use of personal data (which encompassed DNA).
Structure of the discussion paper
9 The Chair explained that the remit of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics included the promotion of the public understanding of issues, and that therefore the discussion paper should be written for a public audience. It needed to be concise and to contain a glossary.
10 The introduction would give the background to the inquiry. Chapter 2 would describe the ‘interpretation’ of bioinformation. First, the science behind DNA testing and the basic principles regarding the variation in human genetics and our ability to identify people from their DNA profile would be outlined. The chapter should also describe any controversies in this area. There would be separate consideration of fingerprint analysis.
11 It was pointed out that, at all times, a clear distinction should be made between discussions regarding profiles, and those regarding samples. The issue of ethnic inferencing from DNA profiles was raised, leading to questions concerning the extent that physiological information could be established from forensic DNA profiles.
12 Chapters 3, 4 and 5 would include discussion of the following ethical issues: privacy and proportionality; and consent (especially in relation to children and volunteers), including the issue of the irrevocability of consent for samples to be retained from volunteers. Comparisons can be drawn with other databases, such as medical databases.
13 Issues of the impact of the National DNA Database (NDNAD) in terms of the over-representation of certain groups and the implications of this for ethical principles of universality and equality should be raised. The rationale for the permanent retention of personal data would also need to be explored. It was agreed that the removal of profiles from the NDNAD was an issue of particular relevance. Removal of profiles from the database of those not convicted, and how these guidelines operated, could become important issues.
14 It was agreed that the discussion paper should contain close consideration of the regulation and oversight of the NDNAD and in particular, the oversight of private DNA suppliers and the sharing of personal data among other agencies, both nationally and internationally. This should be followed by consideration of the regulatory framework in some detail, addressing whether the processes and procedures operated in line with ethical principles.
Public consultation
15 Members considered a draft consultation paper that was provided by the Project Manager. The Chair explained that almost all Nuffield Council reports are informed by public consultations, which normally attract attention from interested parties, as well as members of the public, with a high quality of responses.
16 It was pointed out that there was a great deal of public interest in this area, with much media exposure of forensic science generally, so it should be the case that the public consultation would prompt a good response. The Director of the Council explained that for previous Working Parties, the Secretariat had produced a summary of the principal issues raised by respondents. This would be considered by the Working Group and form the basis of an appendix to the final discussion paper.
17 It was agreed that the consultation document should provide sufficient detail to allow respondents to address the questions posed. Members of the Working Group were requested to forward any suggestions for questions to be posed in the consultation document to the Project Manager.
18 A revised draft of the consultation document, with the proposed questions, would be circulated, via email, to all Working Group members for comment before requesting approval by the Council at its meeting on 19th October.
19 It was agreed that the consultation document should be sent to relevant forensic, policing and legal bodies (including private providers of forensic services). Further suggestions for additions to the distribution list included genetics societies and organisations likely to have an interest. Other suggestions from Working Group members should be sent to the Project Manager. It was agreed to launch the consultation at the Science Media Centre at the end of October or early November, with the consultation to last three months.
Timetable and method of working
20 A schedule of work was provided to the Working Group. The Chair and Project Manager would report progress to the Council and also present the final discussion paper to the Council.
21 The Working Group agreed the dates of subsequent meetings, and the format that these should take. Part of each of the following two meetings would take the form of fact-finding meetings with experts.
Fact-finding meetings
22 It was agreed that it would be advantageous for members of the Working Group to visit a forensic laboratory and speak directly to scientists. The Chair concluded the meeting by asking members to send any further suggestions or ideas directly to the Project Manager.
Any other business
23 The Chair reminded all Working Group members to return their completed forms for the Register of Interests to the Secretariat.
24 With regard to background reading, members should send any useful material to the Project Manager for circulation to the Working Group.
Future meetings of the Working Group would take place on 22nd January, 16th March and 22nd May.
Last Updated Wed, 6 June 2007