Although DNA testing is something that is used primarily by scientists who can use and interpret DNA and the results of testing processes, DNA in recent years has become a fantastic tool for use in forensic science. Used by police forces to try and determine which of many suspects might be the one who is guilty, this form of testing makes for exceptional evidence gathering and a near faultless method of proving who is guilty. However, the science behind the forensic testing of DNA by the general population is usually left unknown. So, what really does happen?

DNA Forensic Testing ? Example

For the sake of this information, assume a person was raped and murdered, and there are a number of potential suspects. Who did it? Was it the boyfriend, or was it someone else? Let's assume that there is a semen sample obtainable from clothing or from the victim. Semen carries sperm cells which carry DNA and because of that, they can run a gel electrophoreses on the sample of DNA to try and compare the fragments of DNA that appear.

A gel electrophoreses, in layman terms, is where the laboratory fragments the DNA by use of an endonuclease and then sends an electrical charge through the DNA. The fragments move up the gel based on their molecular charge, molecular weight, and a number of other factors. However, it is not just this gel that you need as a forensic scientist. What they are looking for is comparisons between the DNA taken from the rape victim, as well as the DNA from the boyfriend (if he obliges to submit a sample) and the DNA found in the other suspects. If the forensic scientist then compares the gels and observes that the semen is not the boyfriend's, but someone else's it is likely that a potential suspect will have been identified.

DNA Forensic Testing ? Is it Ethical?

However, is this an effective and ethical method? The argument that it is ineffective would be a hollow one, given the range of supporting evidence in favour of the accuracy of DNA testing. The above example, and the widespread use of this technology, supports a firm argument that DNA is an extremely useful method of determining who is guilty in the case of a crime scenario.

Because the human genome has been mapped and scientists are able to determine, more and more personal information, like what diseases you may have be genetically predisposed to from your DNA, it becomes a much more of a personal issue. The argument with DNA databases is that you're storing information that can be used for more than just identification. The argument then becomes ?should ethics get in the way of truly determining who is guilty??

That comes down to people's constitutional rights and the government's position on the issue. We are more likely to see a push from the authorities to give greater power to law enforcement agencies to be able to collect DNA samples with more ease and thereby populate further the databases. The greater the database the more chances there are of identifying a suspect and solving a crime. However, human rights groups will argue that this is an invasion of privacy and collection of DNA samples should be limited in scope. The debate goes on.