The Forensic Use of Bioinformation:

1

• The Forensic Use of Bioinformation
• ethical issues
• Professor Sir Bob Hepple QC FBA
• Chairman, Nuffield Council on Bioethics and
  Working Group

2
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

3
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

4
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

5
Forensic bioinformationThe 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

6
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

7
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

8
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