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

• 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: background

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

Structure:• Ethical issues• The science• Criminal investigation• Trial• Other uses• Governance

Forensic bioinformation:The Report

• Aim: to promote public discussion and assist policy makers

• Focus: DNA and fingerprinting

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