---
title: "These NIH Experts Don’t Think Info From Genetic Databases Should Be Used in Court"
description: "How police databases are compiled, and confusion over what DNA at crime scenes means, makes these three experts suspicious."
date: "2018-05-29"
modified: "2018-05-29"
authors:
  - name: "Leslie Nemo"
    link: "https://futurism.com/authors/leslienemo"
url: "https://futurism.com/nih-experts-genetic-databases-court"
categories:
  - "Cybersecurity"
  - "Data Privacy"
  - "Future Society"
tags:
  - "dna database"
  - "genetics"
  - "golden state killer"
---

# These NIH Experts Don’t Think Info From Genetic Databases Should Be Used in Court

![](<https://futurism.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/dna-database.png>)
*\<em\>Image: \<a href="https://pixabay.com/photo-1811955/" target="\_blank"\>qimono / Emily Cho\</a\>\</em\>*

When police used the publicly-available genealogy website GEDmatch to [identify the Golden State Killer](<https://futurism.com/golden-state-killer-dna>), everyone was surprised — including GEDmatch. Authorities [hadn’t told](<https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/04/gedmatch-a-tiny-dna-analysis-firm-was-key-for-golden-state-killer-case/>) the company they had uploaded crime scene DNA to create a fake user profile and find their suspect.

The investigation sparked a conversation about DNA privacy. If you upload your genetic information to a database, what are other people allowed to do with that material? Now, [an opinion article penned](<http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/2683001/ethical-use-genealogy-data-solve-crimes>) by several experts from the National Institute of Health, however, raises some other doubts about DNA databases and manhunts. Namely: their results shouldn’t be used as evidence.

The authors have two main reasons why they think results of online genetic search engines should be relegated to background research. One: investigations based on police database entries might skew towards specific racial and ethnic groups. Authorities only swab, analyze, and catalogue the DNA of the people they arrest — which are [disproportionately minorities](<https://www.wired.com/2011/10/forensic-dna/>). Building up family trees of relationships through these databases, like authorities did for the Golden State Killer, could work with the same bias, warn the authors. Put another way: “Forensic DNA databases are growing to mirror racial disparities in arrest practices and incarceration rates," sociologists Troy Duster and Peter Chow-Whit wrote [in a 2011 essay.](<http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001100>)

Their second argument echoes a common misunderstanding about genetics in court. Just because someone’s DNA is recovered from a crime scene doesn’t mean they committed the crime — it just means their DNA wound up in that spot. When authorities don't take that into account, it can lead to wrongful convictions. For example: in 2012, a taxi driver was convicted of murder because his DNA was found in the victim’s nails. In reality, he had a flaky skin condition, and his DNA wound up all over his car and embedded in her sticky nail polish, as the [BBC](<http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19412819>) reports.

In fact, the search for the Golden State Killer itself seems to emphasize the point that we should take information from genetic databases with a big grain of salt: the search [initially turned up a different suspect](<https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joseph-deangelo-golden-state-killer-search-led-to-wrong-man-2017/>) (he was ruled out after taking a court-mandated genetic test).

The Golden State Killer may be in custody in part based on evidence uncovered from a genetic database, but it's not yet clear that this evidence will [be enough to convict him](<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234535/>). As authorities rely more heavily on DNA databases (both commercial ones and those [they themselves create](<http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-police-dna-databases-20170304-story.html>)), they're going to want to use that data to push for convictions. Depending on what happens with the Golden State Killer case as it goes to trial, it may establish a legal precedent that could make evidence from genetic databases acceptable in court, bringing the NIH scientists' fears to life.