INTERPOL HANDBOOK ON DNA DATA EXCHANGE AND PRACTICE

Another obvious issue associated with these developments is the switch from noncodingto associative markers. This is particularly significant in the context of debatethat has occurred during the development of DNA-based legislation and databases.Opponents to expanding DNA legislation were appeased by the fact that the DNAinformation sought was non-diagnostic. Standard STR profiling is unable to provideany information about the race or physical appearance of the sample donor, andcontribute only to the issue of identity. To further remove these concerns manyjurisdictions implemented legal criteria requiring forensic agencies to destroy forensicDNA samples after analysis to ensure they would not be tested for any other geneticpurpose. It is clear therefore that any perceived link between the use of phenotypingtechnology and DNA samples stored on State and National databases will provokesome level of controversy. However, it is not essential for the use of phenotypicmarkers and DNA Databases to merge, as each aims to address a different question:“What might the suspect look like?” as opposed to “Is this the suspect’s blood at thescene?” In addition, intelligence-based use of phenotypic markers does not rely uponcomparison and aims instead to reduce an open-circle problem to a manageablenumber of possibilities. The two systems would operate best if they were usedconcurrently. However, departing from the non-coding basis of forensic DNA testingis significant and ensuring appropriate operational use will be fundamental to achievinga positive impact.PAGE 82GEOGRAPHICAL SEARCH, PHYLOGENY, PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICSAND OTHER USES