DNA and Family Genealogy Problems in Testing

            On the surface, the majority of the problems that can arise when DNA and family genealogy tests are incorporated into modern-day life appear to be outweighed by the substantial benefits these practices offer. When it comes to the methodological problems these types of tests can pose, this appearance is generally true, as there are numerous ways that the problems can be minimized and mitigated, and the ends generally justify the means. However, in one particular situation where DNA and family genealogy testing is used, just the opposite is true. This instance presents itself when these tests are used in a manner that forces scientists and medical practitioners to make a subjective determination on the ethical, legal, and psychosocial problems that inherently arise from the incorporation of these practices.

            The first group of problems that arise in DNA and family genealogy testing are those that can be mitigated and overcome through adherence to objective standards of practice, yet eventually rise to a problematic level that outweigh any potential benefits that may be afforded. The field of study where this is made most clear is in bioarchaeology, where the most common problem encountered by scientists deals with contamination (Goodman, Heath, and Lindee 282). When the practice of bioarchaeology began to gain momentum as a valid field of study, even those who reviewed such efforts with skepticism after noting that obtaining data in such a way posed some potential methodological risks, were swayed by their belief that “if this can really be done it will be momentous” (Goodman, Heath, and Lindee xii). Yet despite the substantial benefits that could arise from gaining insight into the DNA of our family origins, once the practice started to become more widely adopted, the criticisms that arose from both “target groups” and anthropologists themselves demonstrate that subjectivity had allowed the problems to begin outweighing the potential benefits. The target groups were those whose blood was collected to use in comparison to the archaeological samples, and in turn, a trend started where these comparisons were used as to infer social patterns (Goodman, Heath, and Lindee xii). As a result, what DNA and family genealogy ended up doing for the field of bioarchaeology, was to put aside any actual archaeological discussion and in its place, insert an inference that DNA could not only reconstruct biological relatedness, but also kinship systems (Goodman, Heath, and Lindee xii). While this may have seemed like a profound finding, such an inference betrays one of the most elemental discoveries of archaeology in the past, which was that when people are buried together there might be some commonality in mitochondrial DNA, yet substantial differences in there matrilineal relationships (Goodman, Heath, and Lindee xii). In turn, while DNA and family genealogy testing could have, and still have the possibility to have a profound impact on bioarchaeology, when they are used in a manner that allows too much subjectivity to come into play, then the ultimate purpose for which they were to be used in the first place can end up being lost in the shuffle.

            A similar situation is seen when looking at one of the purest forms of DNA and family genealogy testing, which comes from their use in the diagnosis of a predisposition to diseases or genetic disorders. By their very nature, DNA and family genealogy tests present the type of information that many people often attempt to keep quiet, as “there is often a sense of stigmatization, even embarrassment, about the ‘bad blood’ or ‘curse’ in the family (Bennett 54). Thus, when testing raises issues that deal with these particular matters that individuals may already have some sensitivity to, then they can inherently cause tensions to rise. With that being said, most medical practitioners are made aware of such implications and are sufficiently trained in approaches that can be used to avoid causing problems. They therefore are able to mitigate many of problems by being sensitive to the use of terms that can cause these undesirable feelings and personal beliefs to be perpetuated (Bennett 54-55). Yet in one specific situation, even taking these things into account is an insufficient means to account for these problems. According to the American Society of Human Genetics, every child who is adopted should have a full genetic report included within their adoption record (Bennett 156). The Society believes that “every person should have the right to gain access to his or her medical record, including genetic data,” and that “when medically appropriate, genetic data may be shared among the adoptive parents, biological parents and adoptees” (Bennett 156). Although this seems like a reasonable proposition, the trouble is that there is no uniform policy across the nation on how this should take place, or more importantly, on what constitutes a medically appropriate situation (Bennett 156). What ends up happening then, is that medical practitioners and the adoptive families that they are assisting, are left to determine their own levels of appropriateness. In turn, the question becomes who amongst this group is the ultimate decision-maker on whether or not a genetic profile should be used and on what genetic aspects should be included? (Bennett 157) Likewise, questions also crop up regarding the what level of “burden” a disease must arise to for it to be deemed important enough to be interjected into the private triad of adoption? (Bennett 157) Furthermore, even methodological problems can come up in this discussion, as there is no clearly delineated level of accuracy in testing is prescribed to say when such information should be included (Bennett 157). These issues are especially problematic when parents have had their parental rights terminated involuntarily, or in situations where the adoption process drags out through the court system during the entire life of the adopted child, because the medical practitioner’s role can then end up going well-beyond the scope of their traditional medical duties.

            In perhaps the most problematic instance of them all, there may not be any real mitigating efforts that can be made. In the forensic field, false positives in DNA and family genealogy testing can arise based upon results being improperly attributed to an individual based in large part on their racial or ethnic disposition (Thompson 34). A majority of the problem here comes from the fact that most government databases that are used to runs comparative tests include a disproportionate number of minorities, meaning that “the risk of false incrimination will fall disproportionately on members of the included groups” (Thompson 34). This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that many jurisdictions and the public at large have been led to believe that these tests are infallible in the world of criminal justice. Unfortunatley, they are far from it, as such tests in a forensic setting actually serve as a demonstration of the variety of ways that they can be inaccurate or misconstrued. These include coincidental DNA profile matches, inadvertent transfer of DNA material between samples, errors in labeling, misinterpretation of results, and even intentional planting of biological evidence to frame a particular person (Thompson 35). 

            The end result in this situation is that a person may be convicted of a crime and have their liberty entirely stripped from them, despite being entirely innocent, just because a certain DNA or family genealogy test points the finger at them. In such instances, such harm is irreparable, and even one instance seems to certainly outweigh the potential benefits that this practice can have.

Thompson, William C. “The Potential for Error in Forensic DNA Testing: And How that Complicates the Use of DNA Databases for Criminal Identification.” University of California, Irvine: Department of Criminology, Law & Society, 12 Aug. 2008. Web. 13 Oct. 2012. a href="http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI">http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/H4T5EOYUZI