DNA and responsibility

It could be safely said that human beings unwittingly leave their DNA in almost every place they go. But that does not mean it is there for the taking or that anyone should have access to it without their knowledge and consent.

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the fundamental building block for an individual’s entire genetic makeup. DNA can be found in skin cells, hair, finger and toenails, teeth, bone, tissue, muscle, organs, blood, semen, saliva, mucus, perspiration and other bodily waste. Naturally then, people’s DNA will be found in their  homes, offices, and the gyms, salons, spas or other such locales which they frequent. In fact, if carefully considered, human habits point to DNA being left in the most unimaginable and unlikely places.

Since it is part of the genetic makeup of every individual, DNA is as old as Adam. What is fairly new, is that scientists have discovered multiple ways in which it can be used to the benefit of mankind. Among them are learning about the influence of heredity on human behaviour, the possibility of preventing genetic diseases through early treatment and lifestyle changes, and fighting crime. DNA profiling was reportedly first used to solve the heinous rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl in Leicestershire, England in 1986, though it had already been in use in paternity and immigration cases for at least two years prior.

Over the last 35 years, the technology has been increasingly utilized in the determination of thousands of criminal cases around the world, including cold cases, as well as to free hundreds of people who had been, for one reason or another, unfairly dealt with by the justice system. Although it is not the only evidence used, the Innocence Project in the United States relies heavily on DNA technology to bring about the exoneration of the wrongfully convicted.

Given its usefulness, the proliferation of DNA profiling could be a good thing, but only if it is correctly applied.

As reported in this newspaper on Sunday last, moves are being made to legally empower the  Guyana Police Force (GPF) to collect DNA from any person taken into lawful custody in connection with a crime or offence, for the purpose of identification. An amendment to the Police Bill has already been tabled in Parliament to give effect to this end.

Citizens should be concerned that when this was previously publicly ventilated, it was by President Irfaan Ali who had revealed around October last year that it was the government’s intention to establish a DNA database. The offhand manner in which Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn responded to a request for clarification — “You’ll get the explanation in Parliament,” he was quoted as saying — also does not bode well for the protection of citizens’ rights.

The Government of Guyana, through Minister Benn owes the public an explanation as to how it will ensure professionalism with regard to DNA collection. Can people be reassured that they will not be randomly taken into custody simply to justify their DNA being sampled? This is one of the questions that ought to be answered before this amendment is given teeth. To demonstrate that everything is totally above board, the government should not be averse to having a Select Committee examine the proposed legislative amendment.

One must stop short of saying that the GPF is less than exemplary so as not to tar all its officers with the same brush. But one has to be brutally honest and admit that the bad apples exist and there are more than a few of them. Furthermore, the police’s record with DNA leaves a lot to be desired.

There have been numerous cases over the years where DNA samples were taken and sent overseas only to have them stall for years, awaiting the results.

The Guyana Forensic Science Laboratory (GFSL) began DNA testing in June 2019, after the government, with funding from the Inter-American Development Bank, was able to purchase the necessary equipment worth hundreds of thousands of US dollars. However, last year, during the investigation into the murders of Isaiah and Joel Henry, a decision was taken by the powers that be to send the DNA samples gathered to St Lucia for testing. This announcement was made by President Ali on September 29.

When contacted for a comment on this development, Head of the GFSL Delon France had told this newspaper that the local turnaround time for sample testing was 30 days, but he had told the police he could have the results available in three weeks. Nevertheless, a decision was taken to send the samples overseas as the police wanted the results urgently. One takes that to mean earlier than the 21 days promised by Mr France. Well given the police’s record, it should surprise no one that the results were not received from St Lucia until October 28. This begs the question: does the GPF have confidence in the GFSL? Because the above scenario certainly does not so indicate.

The hope, therefore, is that the explanations the citizenry can expect in Parliament will also include details as to the GFSL’s role in the collection and storage of DNA data. There should also be assurances that collected DNA samples are treated responsibly and with the utmost care, and that there is no danger of people’s privacy being exploited. Moreover, there should be guarantees that citizens can access speedy recourse to satisfactory legal action should this occur.

Misuse of DNA, including its sale is mushrooming globally and is a cause for deepening disquiet among some governments as well as the international legal community. Guyana would do well to first ensure it has built the capacity to safely handle DNA data before embarking on its collection.