110 likes | 221 Vues
Human Rights Safeguards for DNA Databases. Helen Wallace www.genewatch.org. Expansion of the police DNA database in England and Wales. Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (May 2001): allowed retention of DNA profiles, fingerprints and samples after acquittal or if charges dropped
E N D
Human Rights Safeguards for DNA Databases Helen Wallace www.genewatch.org
Expansion of the police DNA database in England and Wales • Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (May 2001): allowed retention of DNA profiles, fingerprints and samples after acquittal or if charges dropped • Criminal Justice Act 2003: move to collection on arrest (all recordable offences) • Approximately 1 million innocent people have DNA samples, DNA profiles, fingerprints and police record of arrest retained to age 100
Human Rights Issues • Biosurveillance (tracking of citizens and their families, including non-paternity) • Categorisation based on genetics or other data (names, ethnicity, arrest records) • Discrimination based on categorisation of individuals as ‘risky’
European Convention on Human Rights • ARTICLE 8 • Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. • There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
United Arab Emirates 2006 His Royal Highness Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, attends the signing of the agreement between UK Forensic Science Service and UAE Minister of Interior. 13th Feb 2006
UNESCO International Declaration on Human Genetic Data 2003 • Article 21 – Destruction • (b) Human genetic data, human proteomic data and the biological samples collected from a suspect in the course of a criminal investigation should be destroyed when they are no longer necessary, unless otherwise provided for by domestic law consistent with the international law of human rights. • [as amended following lobbying by theUK Government]
Problems with UNESCO process(thanks to: Adele Langlois, University of Lincoln) • International Bioethics Committee (IBC) plus International Governmental Bioethics Committee (IGBC): states have final say. • Consensus documents only (i.e. defined by UK practice in this case). • Expertise of IBC? Efficiency? • UNESCO known for role in education: ethics role poorly known. • No reporting or enforcement.
Possible approaches • Define and build on ‘best practice’ and key principles to protect human rights • Development of non-governmental (and/or ‘stakeholder’) consensus • Minimum ethical standards and/or champions of best practice? • An alternative to UNESCO for global standards? • And/or revise UNESCO Declaration? • To discuss further: DNA forensics session 9am Wednesday