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