Question

What are some of the challenges in attempting kinship associations in parentage testing, disaster victim identification, and missing persons investigations using DNA instead of direct matching as performed in forensic testing?

Answer 1

DNA analysis is increasingly used to identify the remains of victims of conflicts and disasters. This is especially true in cases where remains are badly damaged and fragmented, or where antemortem records are unavailable. Incidental findings (IFs)—that is, genetics-related information for which investigators were not looking—may result from these identification efforts employing DNA analysis. Because of the critical role played by family members of the missing in identification efforts, as well as the familial nature of DNA, identification initiatives employing DNA analysis are particularly prone to reveal IFs about familial relationships, such as misattributed paternity or false beliefs about sibling relationships. Despite forensic scientists’ widespread awareness of the possibility of generating IFs, to date there has been relatively little explicit guidance about their management. This paper fills that gap. It offers substantive guidance about the ethical management of IFs in this context. To ensure that the analysis addresses actual needs and practices in the field, one author (JDA) conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants from six regionally diverse organizations involved in post-conflict or post-disaster identification efforts. The paper first describes how methods of DNA analysis give rise to IFs. Next, it explains the importance of developing an ethically justified general policy for managing IFs and discusses features of DNA identification efforts that are relevant to such a policy. Then it presents an argument in support of a general policy of nondisclosure—specifically, that considerations of fair access to the individual and social benefits of identification efforts, and the concern to minimize and fairly distribute the risks of participation, support a policy of nondisclosure. It concludes by considering some implications of this argument for the choice among scientific practices involved in using DNA analysis to identify human remains, as well as for managing non-genetic incidental findings.

Although practitioners in field of DNA identification will be intimately familiar with the scientific aspects of the identification process, others interested in the policy questions addressed in this paper may benefit from this brief description of two methods of DNA identification.

When human remains are fragmented or badly damaged, DNA analysis may be the only feasible way to make a positive individual identification. No two human beings have precisely the same DNA. Each of us carries minor variations in the structure and sequence of our DNA that make us genetically unique individuals, although it may be difficult in practice to distinguish the DNA of identical twins. One method of using DNA to identify human remains relies directly on this uniqueness of an individual’s genetic profile. “Direct matching” involves comparing DNA extracted from unidentified human remains to DNA from biological material found on personal items, such as toothbrushes, hairbrushes, razors, or pieces of clothing, known to have been used by a person who has gone missing. A match occurs when the genetic profiles from the human remains and that obtained from a personal item (the “direct sample”) are identical. Direct matching was used in approximately two-thirds of all identifications in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center Attacks. Because most of the victims were living in stable environments before their deaths, and because the attacks did not destroy their homes or other places where they might have had personal effects, relatives could quickly provide authorities with items from which DNA samples could be obtained