DNA Database

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

That's exactly what they do with DNA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloning#Human_cloning

Wait, but won't the database be done with something computerized, not just a collection of saliva (or hair, skin, blood, etc.) from everyone? Sure, maybe you could take any cell and manipulate each of its genes so that it matches someone, but that would be an extremely tedious and expensive task.

Sure you can, but you can't accomplish anything particularly interesting with it.

Well, yeah. Exactly my point?

 

[opaltiger]

Well, yeah. Exactly my point?

I was correcting your biology, not challenging your argument.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Sure you can, but you can't accomplish anything particularly interesting with it.

Eh, plant their DNA to implicate them in a crime?

 

[opaltiger]

Eh, plant their DNA to implicate them in a crime?

That is not how it works.

First of all, synthesising enough DNA for it to be recognisably one individual's simply isn't feasible. You could synthesise only the sequences that show most variation, but that would be a tad suspicious.

Your other option is then to insert a person's DNA into another cell. For this you obviously need an actual sample; second problem is that, as with most biotechnological techniques, this works with probability. Use enough cells, a few of them will have the DNA you want - but identifying and isolating those is quite difficult, especially with DNA that complex. Add to that the fact that you'd have to insert the DNA into cells that make sense (e.g. skin cells) and you have quite the task (I think it might be possible if you insert the required DNA into stem cells, then stimulate them to differentiate into the required tissue; but it would be hard). In short, you'd need complete access to actual samples of DNA, and a well-equipped laboratory.

 

[Peter Shadeslayer]

Why is this necessary? Store the DNA of criminals maybe, but for what other reason would you want to have the DNA signature of every person in the nation?

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

In short, you'd need complete access to actual samples of DNA, and a well-equipped laboratory.

And you don't think MI5 or the CIA are capable of getting those things? Heck, G2 could get there hands on those, let alone a real intelligence agency.

 

[opaltiger]

And you don't think MI5 or the CIA are capable of getting those things? Heck, G2 could get there hands on those, let alone a real intelligence agency.

Oh, I thought we were talking about realistic scenarios. I don't think a government conspiracy would need to bother with intricately planted DNA evidence if they wanted to frame someone!

 

[Jetx]

Why is this necessary? Store the DNA of criminals maybe, but for what other reason would you want to have the DNA signature of every person in the nation?

So that it'd be increasingly difficult for anyone to get away with anything.

 

[Eloi]

Two logic problems:
1) Criminals or would-be criminals are not ones to follow laws, which is why I'm also against fully banning firearms, but thats a different (more controversial) topic.
2) If you kept tabs on a person via DNA won't that just shoot the Witness Protection Service in the foot? I mean they can change everything BUT your DNA, and the less ties they can make the better. The DNA Database would be counter-productive.
3) Not to mention the cost, legal hassle, and controversy such a database would cause. Not to mention all of the scientists you'd have to pay for aprox. 300 million samples of DNA. That's alot of frivolous money spent on something not necessary. (Not thats ever been a problem for the gov't...)
4) Finally, you know DNA evidence is NOT perfect. Lab errors would be frequent with the mass creation of such a large database, which would create a few false positives that may put people into jail under less than perfect circumstances.
5) No better way to say to citizens "We don't trust any of you!" Not very good messages to send as a gov't that commands the trust from citizens in order to stay in office.
So that would be an unfeasible, costly system created for the sole purpose of satisfying governmental paranoia about the very citizens that put them in office.
Thus a DNA Database wouldn't be a very good idea.

 

[Teh Ebil Snorlax]

Oh, I thought we were talking about realistic scenarios. I don't think a government conspiracy would need to bother with intricately planted DNA evidence if they wanted to frame someone!

Given some of the CIA's past plans, practicality and simplicity aren't high on their list of priorities.

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

Two logic problems:
1) Criminals or would-be criminals are not ones to follow laws, which is why I'm also against fully banning firearms, but thats a different (more controversial) topic.

I don't really see how this is relevant. Unless you mean they could break in and alter the database, I'm not really understanding.

2) If you kept tabs on a person via DNA won't that just shoot the Witness Protection Service in the foot? I mean they can change everything BUT your DNA, and the less ties they can make the better. The DNA Database would be counter-productive.

Regular people aren't going to have access to this database. :/ It would, obviously, be highly confidential.

3) Not to mention the cost, legal hassle, and controversy such a database would cause. Not to mention all of the scientists you'd have to pay for aprox. 300 million samples of DNA. That's alot of frivolous money spent on something not necessary. (Not thats ever been a problem for the gov't...)

Well, this can work on a voluntary basis (like opal suggested), or the government can simply mandate laws to require a DNA sample with each new blood test or doctor's appointment and with each newborn baby.

4) Finally, you know DNA evidence is NOT perfect. Lab errors would be frequent with the mass creation of such a large database, which would create a few false positives that may put people into jail under less than perfect circumstances.

Well, nothing may be perfect, but criminologists can tie more pieces of evidence to a crime than just DNA.

5) No better way to say to citizens "We don't trust any of you!" Not very good messages to send as a gov't that commands the trust from citizens in order to stay in office.
So that would be an unfeasible, costly system created for the sole purpose of satisfying governmental paranoia about the very citizens that put them in office.
Thus a DNA Database wouldn't be a very good idea.

Well, this is not really an issue. The government doesn't really /have/ to trust us. The database would be used purely to help criminal investigations; it's more saying that the government doesn't trust us as a country to not produce murderers (which, statistically, is not very offensive or a big reach).

 

[Eloi]

I don't really see how this is relevant. Unless you mean they could break in and alter the database, I'm not really understanding.

They wouldn't come for the test, they'd intentionally try to screw it up, like giving their girlfriend's/boyfriend's DNA to them or taking substances that'd screw up the data etc.

Regular people aren't going to have access to this database. :/ It would, obviously, be highly confidential.

True but say your murderer is a chemist, or used to work with government, or details got leaked, or people were bribed. No information is absolutely safe.

Well, this can work on a voluntary basis (like opal suggested), or the government can simply mandate laws to require a DNA sample with each new blood test or doctor's appointment and with each newborn baby.

If its voluntary, criminals or would-be criminals wouldn't show up. Why would they go out of their way to make it easier for people to catch them? Oh, and I doubt you could do all of the tests with a newborn baby. In addition to blood, saliva, you'd also need a semen sample, as that kind of DNA evidence is often used in sexual assault cases. So, yeah. Not to mention the already mentioned logistical problems inherit in that...

Well, nothing may be perfect, but criminologists can tie more pieces of evidence to a crime than just DNA.

You mean the prosecution can make up a case of pure conjecture and then use the false positive DNA match as evidence? Uh-huh, yeah thats able to happen.

Well, this is not really an issue. The government doesn't really /have/ to trust us. The database would be used purely to help criminal investigations; it's more saying that the government doesn't trust us as a country to not produce murderers (which, statistically, is not very offensive or a big reach).

No, they /have/ to trust us because we /have/ to trust them. This whole system is a trust system, each party wary of the other. One thing can inbalance that, spark suspicion on the other's suspicion, DNA Database can be the tipping point on that.

 

[Doctor Jimmy]

Sure, maybe you could take any cell and manipulate each of its genes so that it matches someone, but that would be an extremely tedious and expensive task.

Why would the government need to decode DNA? We have corporations to do that for us. And if the government needed to keep it top secret, we have plenty of hush money to give. All it takes is to slip a little pork into a related national security bill to make this whole thing happen, and the public won't even give a damn. It's practically foolproof!

 

[EvilCrazyMonkey]

They wouldn't come for the test, they'd intentionally try to screw it up, like giving their girlfriend's/boyfriend's DNA to them or taking substances that'd screw up the data etc.

Well, okay, some people would not like it and work against it, but this doesn't mean it should be completely done away with. Plus, with girlfriend/boyfriend stuff, (in straight couples, at least), they'd know it's not that person's DNA simply through the gender. And, sure, someone may not come to the doctor's office, but then they wouldn't receive any medical attention. Ugh, sounds like a no-brainer to me. (I'm not saying we should threaten people, but if samples are mandated at, say, the next doctor visit, well, you'd have to go there.)

True but say your murderer is a chemist, or used to work with government, or details got leaked, or people were bribed. No information is absolutely safe.

Regular chemists are not going to have access to the database. Neither are people that used to work with the government. Their ability to read confidential files and gather information was obviously revoked when they quit or were fired.

No information is absolutely safe, but we can come pretty darn close. A rapist or identity thief could, hypothetically, work with the government census bureau or FBI. Should we now stop the government from knowing personal information such as sex, address, social security, etc.? Just because there can be corruption doesn't necessarily mean there will be.

If its voluntary, criminals or would-be criminals wouldn't show up. Why would they go out of their way to make it easier for people to catch them? Oh, and I doubt you could do all of the tests with a newborn baby. In addition to blood, saliva, you'd also need a semen sample, as that kind of DNA evidence is often used in sexual assault cases. So, yeah. Not to mention the already mentioned logistical problems inherit in that...

Well, maybe current criminals wouldn't show up for obvious reasons, but would-be criminals, unless on the verge of committing a crime, wouldn't know that they are criminals. Sure, they may still not show up, but some information is better than none. And parents of would-be criminals (when they're children, of course) may want their children entered into the database.

As for newborns, you could take a simple saliva sample. As long as you have the DNA, you can compare it to any other DNA sample, no matter if they come from different types of cells.

You mean the prosecution can make up a case of pure conjecture and then use the false positive DNA match as evidence? Uh-huh, yeah thats able to happen.

No. I mean that people can come up with more evidence in most cases than DNA. An accidental false positive would surely create some problems, but I'm thinking that it would be hard to "accidentally" misread DNA and match it exactly with someone else's.

No, they /have/ to trust us because we /have/ to trust them. This whole system is a trust system, each party wary of the other. One thing can inbalance that, spark suspicion on the other's suspicion, DNA Database can be the tipping point on that.

Why should we not trust them with our DNA (and not even samples, either) if we trust them with information such as phone numbers, addresses, and social security numbers when DNA is so much less useful?

Why would the government need to decode DNA? We have corporations to do that for us. And if the government needed to keep it top secret, we have plenty of hush money to give. All it takes is to slip a little pork into a related national security bill to make this whole thing happen, and the public won't even give a damn. It's practically foolproof!

I don't see why everyone jumps to "omg! there will be corruption!" The government already knows ridiculous amounts of information about us; I don't see why something else (especially as useless as DNA) would suddenly make every government worker rebel against the people.

 

[surskitty]

And, sure, someone may not come to the doctor's office, but then they wouldn't receive any medical attention. Ugh, sounds like a no-brainer to me. (I'm not saying we should threaten people, but if samples are mandated at, say, the next doctor visit, well, you'd have to go there.)

Did you know that many people in the US do not have regular checkups or go to the doctor for anything not immediately life-threatening? I would think that regulating things so that even more people wouldn't go to get things checked before they become a major issue would be a horrible idea.

 

[Jason-Kun]

I don't see why privacy's being brought up, since we're not talking about things like the tapping of phone lines. I think the most one would have to fear would be a case of mistaken idenity, which with the proper identification would solve that problem.

Either way I'm against it unless it's voluntary.

 

[Ivy Newton]

Since we're reading Dystopian Sci-Fi that almost exclusively has some tie-in to DNA and genetics in English class right now, this idea is making me imagine some sort of crazy suckish futuristic world.

But if I actually start thinking logically I don't really see how it would be much of an issue.

 

[Ruby]

Privacy is being "brought up" because some people believe in the right to anonymity. As for social security numbers, which somebody mentioned, the first difference to come to mind is that a number is arbitrary whereas my DNA is biologically a piece of me, and no doubt there are other differences to be pointed out, though I'm too sleepy to think of them myself.