Mark Henderson, Science Editor
Download 'Too Hot', an exclusive Specials track from iTunes
DNA fingerprints of people who have not been convicted of a crime should be removed from the national database, Britain’s most influential ethical think-tank recommended yesterday.
In a report that is highly critical of the Government’s approach to forensic use of genetic information, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics found it unacceptable for the police to keep DNA records from victims of crime, witnesses and suspects who are later acquitted or never charged.
The panel of scientists, philosophers, criminologists and lawyers also urged ministers to drop proposals to allow the police to take and store DNA from people suspected of less serious crimes, such as minor traffic offences and littering.
It rejected the idea of storing the genetic profile of every citizen, and recommended changes to the way that DNA evidence is presented in court.
Police in England, Wales and Northern Ireland can take DNA fingerprints from anybody arrested on suspicion of a recordable offence – a list that includes all serious crimes that might warrant a prison sentence.
The information can be stored indefinitely, and potentially matched with samples at crime scenes, even if the suspect is innocent. In March, Downing Street suggested extending this to people arrested for nonrecordable offences, which are invariably minor.
DNA taken from victims and witnesses to separate it from suspects’ samples at crime scenes can also be added to the database with their permission, and there is no way they can have it removed at a later date.
Carole McCartney, of the Centre for Criminal Justice Studies at the University of Leeds, the project manager for the report, said: “There was no convincing evidence we could see that storing DNA from people not convicted of an offence has any impact on crime detection rates.”
The report said that DNA should be stored only if there is a conviction, as happens in most European countries. An exception would be made only for serious violent and sexual offences.
Samples could still be taken from people who are arrested and stored until the police investigation was complete. Without a conviction, however, samples would have to be destroyed. Victims or witnesses who agreed to have their DNA stored should be allowed to remove it at any time.
Inclusion on the database can place innocent people under suspicion, the report concluded. “My local off-licence was recently subject to an armed robbery,” Dr McCartney said. “My DNA will be all over the place, but I’m not actually a criminal, I’m just a chocolate-eating wine drinker.”
The report advised that information from under18s should not be stored unless there was a good reason, such as a conviction for murder. At the moment, genetic fingerprints from about 750,000 under18s are stored.
While the panel had no ethical objection to a national database, including everybody’s DNA profile, it found that any benefits would be “disproportionate” to set-up costs, estimated at more than £700 million.
“We don’t think the infringement to personal liberty and privacy would be significantly outweighed by the benefits to society,” Dr McCartney said.
Professor Sir Bob Hepple, QC, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge and chairman of the Nuffield council, said that while DNA evidence has been a huge advance in crime detection and prevention, it must be handled with care.
“We need only think of public concern about the McCann case to realise there can be doubts about the science,” he said.
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: “The database has revolutionised the way the police can protect the public through securing more convictions from around 45,000 matches per year. Inclusion does not signify a criminal record.”

Copy codes
— DNA fingerprinting involves recording genetic markers, known as short tandem repeats, as 20 two-digit numbers
— The probability of a chance match of all 20 numbers is about one in a million
— The national DNA database holds about four million samples, more than 6 per cent of the population. It holds more than 264,000 crime scene samples
— In 2005-06, 715,239 individual samples and 68,774 crime-scene samples were added
Source: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Home Office
Win a luxury weekend to Newcastle and its neighbour Gateshead, find out more here
Risk, resilience and embracing new technology
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
Discover the power of collective thinking. Submit a solution and be in with a chance to win a Media Hub Home Entertainment System
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip
Make the most of the summer and enter our fabulous photographic competition, you could win a £5000 holiday
Corsica is an island of beauty and contrast, an ideal holiday destination
Enjoy further reading from Travel to Fashion, Business to Sport, discover more
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
The clever way to lease a new car is with Car leasing made simple™
2009
per month on 36-month
Personal Contract Hire (PCH)
2008
42850
Car Insurance
£24,250 - £30,346
MI5
London
£60,000
The Environment Agency
Bristol
Up to £90K
Boots
Midlands
OTE £85k
Credit Protection Association
Nationwide Opportunities
Completely London
Luxury Condo's in Manhattan with NYC views
The best new homes in Wimbledon?
Nationwide
Fabulous Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers Including Virgin Atlantic Flights Prices Start From Only £699pp!
Last Minute Cruise And Cruise & Stay Offers. Med From £499pp, Caribbean From £699pp!
5 star quality at a 3 star price.
8 fabulous Canadian cities ...you won’t find cheaper
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions | E-paper
News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2009 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
I agree that some form of record should be kept, perhaps sexually related criminals and in particular known paedos should be routinely 'swabbed' however i cannot see what good can come from a national database as this information will be passed onto the corporate sector and that thought is scary.
john, dartford, kent
I have a suggestion for all of you so willing to part with something as delicate as your DNA - watch the movie Gattaca.
And also - while it might prove your innocence in certain cases - if your information gets into the wrong hands - you can be denied insurance based on what your genes reveal. There aren't any laws to stop that - so when it's found out that you're at risk for developing certain diseases - there will be no insurance to help pay for treatments.
As well - if an employer gets ahold of your genetic information - they might also discriminate against you because of the financial risks.
Plus - how easy would it be for someone to plant something containing your DNA at a crime scene? Being framed could become rather easy if the judicial system starts to lean too heavily on DNA evidence.
Misty, bartow, U.S.
What is the matter with people?
The police can have my DNA any time they want. I have nothing to hide. If it was made law that EVERYONE had to submit their DNA then we could more easily discover the identity of anyone involved in a serious accident plus controlling emmigration. For God's sake grow up and stop being so stupid, DNA everyone from birth, it's sensible.
harryh, tamworth, staffs
Yet another attempt by this illiberal government to erode your freedoms by the back door. Moroever, despite the platitudes from the Home Office, there is no clear evidence that a massive increase in this datbase would have any significant impact on crime. The very idea that the government wants to have evryone's DNA is horrifying. Knowing the propensity for "function creep" and "mission creep" I certainly am not willing to place my trust in this or any future governmet not to abuse this data. The number of times in my lifetime that ministers and politicians have piously placed their hands on their hearts and sworn that "this would only be used in the most extreme circumstances" only to find that "extreme" becomes the norm, is almost uncountable.
Adrian Ryan, Donegal, Ireland
As a mother of two girls who's future is still very much ahead of them and could go in any direction, good or bad, because no matter how hard we try as parents we have very little control of the decisions our children make as adults and I believe that when children are born and the heal prick test is done that one extra sample should be taken so that DNA for each and every individual can be catalogued. I myself have NOTHING to hide in life and would be more than willing to give a sample of my blood and my DNA stored for future reference.
Sarah, North West,
My finger prints do not appear on any police database as I have never even had a parking ticket. This is as it should be. However, if I am witness to a crime, or in the wrong place at the wrong time, the police can take my DNA profile and store the information alongside the DNA of rapists, thieves and murderers without my consent. As soon as I am eliminated from a list of suspects, the records should be destroyed . I think that people will not want to be Police Witnesses to a crime if their DNA is to be logged. Surely searching the DNA Database will take longer if it is padded out with the DNA profiles of the 95% of us that commit no crimes? British Law is built on the precept of Innocent until Proven Guilty. By building a DNA Database of every man, woman and child as this Government wishes to do, they are assuming that we all will be guilty of some serious crime sometime. Big Brother is watching you!
Beryl, WINDSOR, England
What for? What about the man who appeared "innocent" until caught drink driving 5 years after he had raped a woman? If the police cannot hold innocent people's DNA they will not have such luck at catching sneaky criminals in the future. I don't mind them having my DNA if they need it, it's not like they can make a clone of me in 2007!
Chris, Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire
Some sense from a Government think tank? What is the world coming to!
I fully agree with the findings of the Nuffield Council, but I am sceptical that anything will change. The police want broader powers in all areas which is understandable, but their DNA retention regime is a bridge too far in my book.
I can already hear people spouting "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear". That is such a non argument its almost not worth responding to, but I will.
As the journalist mentions, DNA can be spread far and wide, why should I have to give up my time proving that my DNA was found at a crime scene for totally innocent reasons.
Anyone who cannot see that this is a shift from the powers that be having to prove guilt towards the population having to prove their innocence is quite simply blinkered and blinded by science.
sam, sussex, uk
Liberal idiots, we should have our dna taken.
d case, newquay,
"Inclusion on the database can place innocent people under suspicion" says the report.
No, only when the police are very stupid.
Aah, so that's what they're worried about.
Can I have my DNA back, please?
john, aylesbury,
To think labour is even thinking of this the cost alone to put this into place and other point is we have more cctv than any over country and is that helping crime no! i think like id cards it is taking away our freedom but were did this come from labour or the eu? we should be asking our selfs because it seems another way the eu can control us and after all they love wasting uk tax payers money :)
kelvin, teesside,
My 13yr old grandson was arrested (togeter with two other boys) for throwing pebbles in the road as a woman had complained that she had damage to her car. The boys totally denied even throwing stones near her car which a video recording supported and vehemently denied causing damage.
They were kept in a prison cell for two hours. Then photographed, fingerprinted and DNA taken.
My daughter has written to the Chief constable (Essex) to ask that the DNA etc be removed. This was in June - as yet not even an acknowledgement of the letter has been received.
The family were shocked, dismayed and distraught that this could happen and are extremely concerned that boyish, common childish behaviour has resulted in this kind of treatment which could be potentially damaging to this child's future
Kerry King, Manningtree, England Essex
The panel seems to have lost its way. Why are they talking about "public concern" as a factor, when they are supposed to *lead* opinion by their expert analysis? What is the "infringement to personal liberty" that they think occurs? And why are they passing judgement on cost-effectiveness of the national database when their remit is ethics? What we wanted to know is how often does it go wrong for an innocent person on the database, but instead we got a personal story about the chap's off-license. This is a picture of a self-indulgent committee doing more supposition than research - many meetings, not much actual work. "DNA evidence must be handled with care"...oh, really!!!
Nigel Robertson, Melton Mowbray,
If the government stopped being underhand & sneaky & was upfront & made it compulsory that everyone in the UK (including visitors) had to give their DNA sample to be kept on a national Database (including Scotland) then I wouldnt object to my DNA being taken, as this database would assist in detecting offenders & identify everyone in the UK. But as long as its the case that giving DNA is not compulsory then the government shouldnt encourage DNA samples to be taken surreptitiously by police from anyone they come into contact with for non recordable (non imprisonable) offences or misdemeanours such as traffic offences or being spoken to in the course of an inquiry. At present fingerprints taken by police in normal circumstances are destroyed if the case doesnt go to court or if no conviction is achieved. The only thing that this sneaky DNA policy is doing is make money for sleazy defence solicitors who represent people (probably on legal aid) to get their DNA taken off the DNA Database
Lynda Plum, London, england
I would suggest that all those who think that it's a good idea to have a compulsory DNA database because "Only the guilty will have anything to fear", including, and especially, the judiciary, politicians and the other guardians of the law, should volunteer their own for the database. Here's an interesting question you might care to follow up, how many of these supporters have actually done this?
Bill Q, Derby,
A DNA database will be the completion of Labour's Police totalitarian surveillance state where individual liberties count for nothing.
Michael Boughton-Fox, Cambridge, England
The Lord High Chief Justice of Justices His Honourable Gracious M'Lud Sir Stephen Sedley says that we should all be on it. Is he? Or does he mean just 'us' not 'them'?
eric campell, harrogate, uk