Stealthy DNA tests

[SkepticLance]

The 24 January issue of New Scientist has an editorial article about DNA tests on people, using samples taken without their knowledge, and used to demonstrate marital infidelity, or to determine paternity of a child. It is now possible to collect enough DNA in secret from such things as a toothbrush, hat, chewing gum or comb to carry out such tests. They are cheap. Less than $US 300.

 

The question is the ethics of such practices. It is illegal in the UK and in a few USA states. Do people here think that such testing is unethical and should be banned?

 

Personally, I am inclined to the idea that revealing truth should not be considered unethical. If a person has reason to suspect that his/her spouse has been 'playing around', and sends off a piece of their underwear to test for someone else's DNA, is this unethical? If a man has reason to suspect that a child born by his wife was not fathered by himself, has he not a right to find out?

[CharonY]

Is it really illegal to do a test? I thought it was only not usable in court?

[SkepticLance]

Charon

According to the New Scientist article, it is illegal to collect a sample for DNA testing without the knowledge of the original posessor in the UK, and in Alaska, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Oregon.

 

PS. A follow up article is found at :

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126934.300-special-investigation-could-your-dna-betray-you.html?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=mg20126934.300

Edited January 28, 2009 by SkepticLance

[Mokele]

It's complicated, because, well, why should DNA be any different from other identifying information, like fingerprints? Is it legal for a spouse to dust for prints to see if they've had someone over while they were on vacation?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's complicated, because, well, why should DNA be any different from other identifying information, like fingerprints? Is it legal for a spouse to dust for prints to see if they've had someone over while they were on vacation?

 

DNA might have some medical privacy concerns. Uh, and it is new and scary

[SkepticLance]

According to the article, the companies that offer these DNA tests carry out a limited set of tests, which are enough to demonstrate infidelity or paternity, but without revealing any medical details. It would probably be possible to do further tests with medical implications, but that would be at an added cost.

 

I tend to be biased in favour of anything that reveals truth, and I have little sympathy for spouses who 'play around' and later get caught. Nor do I have sympathy for a woman who is married but has sex with another man and bears the other man's child, while hiding that fact from her husband. My view is that, if a sneaky DNA test can reveal the truth, then that is good.

 

However, the law in the UK and certain other places disagrees with me. It is called the right to privacy. But what about the right of a man to know that the child he raises is actually his? And we all know that, if a woman has had a child to another man, she is not going to give permission for a DNA test.

[Mokele]

According to the article, the companies that offer these DNA tests carry out a limited set of tests, which are enough to demonstrate infidelity or paternity, but without revealing any medical details. It would probably be possible to do further tests with medical implications, but that would be at an added cost.

 

To be more specific, the paternity/identity tests don't even test genes. They test hyper-variable elements called microsatellites, which are sequences in which 1-6 base pairs are repeated over and over. They form because DNA polymerase basically 'skips' when it gets to these short repeats, causing it to 'lose its place' and accidentally replicate more or fewer copies. As a result, they're incredibly variable between individuals, so testing just a few loci (which is cheap) gives you extremely high confidence levels.

 

Actually testing for genes is a bit more difficult, and you have to know what you're looking for. You could test for known genetic diseases (though it would cost more), but you can't just scan the whole genome on a fishing expedition (not without tens of thousands of dollars and years of work).

 

Mokele

[CharonY]

If you are talking about sequencing a genome, nowadays it would take maybe a month. If all runs work perfectly it may cost less than 100k in sequencing kit costs. To generate the sequence with sufficient coverage using a next gen sequencer (e.g. 454) that is. The assembly would take somewhat longer. But everything could be easily done within a year nowadays. But yes, a simple paternity test would generally not reveal any medical information. Of course the same material can used to search for known diesease markers, though, which is only moderately more expensive (if at all).

[Raya]

The way I see it is that if the suspected party has nothing to hide about infidelity or paternity then they would not refuse the test to be taken. If they agree or disagree surely you have your answer and have saved yourself a considerable amount of money.

[mrburns2012]

Simply refusing a paternity test does not suggest that the test will be positive. If the mother has recently had and affair with ten men who works for her husband, your guess will be wrong 10 out of 11 times.

Edited February 14, 2009 by mrburns2012

[Raya]

Agreed, but my point is that if the person had known they had been unfaithful then they would deny the tests because the partner who's DNA should be there (whether on clothing or as part of a child) has a likely chance of not being there, if they were unfaithful with one person 50/50 with more than one person then even higher odds. It makes n difference as to how many people there are. The fact that there are any gives the refusal for the test.

[olive19]

In my own opinion, genetic testing is a positive thing. However, taking samples from people without their consent does seem unethical. I can understand how you would really want to know the truth, but it might be better to go through court and get an issued DNA test. I wrote a paper about genetic testing and how it is an overall positive thing. Hopefully no would ever have to resort to stealing hairs off toothbrushes to find out if the baby is theirs.

[Phi for All]

Hopefully no would ever have to resort to stealing hairs off toothbrushes to find out if the baby is theirs.

 

You could just wait to see if the baby develops hairy teeth, then you'd know without paying for the test.

[Delta1212]

The way I see it is that if the suspected party has nothing to hide about infidelity or paternity then they would not refuse the test to be taken. If they agree or disagree surely you have your answer and have saved yourself a considerable amount of money.

 

I'm suspicious of anything thing that is supported by the argument "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about."

[fiveworlds]

it is illegal to collect a sample for DNA testing without the knowledge of the original posessor in the UK

 

You can however kindly ask for a DNA sample should she refuse you may take her to court. Refusal to provide DNA evidence in court is taken badly by the court and may be seen as evidence of her having an affair. Should this prove to be the case you have grounds for divorce on the suspicion that your wife had an affair. Should you not happen to be married you may get off having to pay child support.

 

Though could paternity tests not just be mandatory before a birth cert is issued?? As in the child has to have a paternity test?

Edited October 28, 2015 by fiveworlds

[Ten oz]

DNA is something we leave behind everywhere we go. Just as once something is thrown away it can no longer be considered stolen if someone else takes it I don't think it would be practical to attempt and enforce rules that every micro gram of DNA I leave and have left all over the city is my own personal property not to be cleaned, tested, or otherwised disturbed. Business and law enforcement can use security cameras all over town to capture my personal image. That is not any sort of privacy violation. I do not see the diiference. Perhaps in the furture people many be able to extract my information from DNA more quickly and it may become a privacy concern. I certianly wouldn't want everyone phonce to have a DNA that could quickly scan my DNA and tell its user my age and medical predispsition but we aren't currently to that bridge.

[TheGeckomancer]

This is a serious Alice in Wonderland Rabbit Hole question........ When you first asked it I was already gripped by the complexity because this is not a simple question. By the time I read through a few responses my mind jumped to a few extension questions that actually scare me a bit.

 

What if we can establish a near perfect rate of genetically mapping criminals? Is it okay? This information would be worthless if we did not proactively test people. And what do you do with that knowledge? Doing anything at all is deterministic and has scary implications about the future of behavioral treatments for people. What if people don't want to be tested?

 

As it is now forensic DNA testing is one of the least accurate sciences we have for prosecution. The odds of pulling anyone else's DNA from the crime scenes are insanely high, you carry the DNA ON YOU of most of the people you have interacted with throughout any given day. If you refuse to submit to a sample, it's borderline incriminating, if you do submit and the test itself was wrong (which happens a lot) you are pretty much guaranteed incriminated.

 

There are a ton more questions that can be asked from this. It's a lot more than "What is more important, truth or privacy?".

[Jessicacreative]

I against mandatory testing of every child. Because when everybody is satisfied, truth is not such an important item. But if someone wants to know truth, or be sure without hurting anybody, yes, it's ethical. A friend of mine (mother of child) used such a kit because she wasn't sure, but, at the same time, she didn't want to damage relationship with husband.

Edited September 1, 2016 by swansont
advertising link removed