Download Forensic bioinformation

The Forensic Use of
Bioinformation:
ethical issues
Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC FBA
Chairman, Nuffield Council on
Bioethics and Working Group
Nuffield Council on
Bioethics
• Established in 1991
• Independent body that examines
ethical questions raised by advances
in biology and medicine
• Contributes to policy making and
stimulates debate
Forensic bioinformation:
background
• Many criminals caught through use
of bioinformation
• UK has largest forensic DNA
database per capita
• Fingerprints are most common type
of bioinformation used by police
• But use of DNA seen as more
sensitive
• Lack of public discussion about
extension to police powers
Forensic bioinformation:
Working Group
• Members with expertise in law, genetics,
philosophy and social science
• Began work in September 2006
• Public consultation received 135
responses:
– 76% individuals
– 24% organisations
• Fact finding meetings
Forensic bioinformation:
The Report
• Aim: to promote public discussion
and assist policy makers
• Focus: DNA and fingerprinting
Structure:
• Ethical issues
• The science
• Criminal investigation
• Trial
• Other uses
• Governance
Ethical values
• Protection of public from crime vs
protection of ethical values:
–
–
–
–
–
Liberty
Autonomy
Privacy
Informed consent
Equality
• We endorse a rights-based approach,
i.e. a balance between personal liberty
and the common good
‘No reason to fear if you are
innocent’
• This argument ignores:
– the cost of being involved in a
criminal investigation
– any intrinsic value of liberty,
privacy and autonomy
– implications of ‘criminality’ of
being on the Database
• It is not a sufficient justification for
the full extent of police powers
Proportionality and human
rights
• Our view: the principle of
proportionality can resolve conflicts of
personal liberty vs common good
• Interventions should be based on
sound evidence
• Rational, coherent, transparent
• At the heart of the recommendations
in the Report
• Any interference with human rights
must be proportionate