» Articles » PMID: 39820169

Investigative Genetic Genealogy Practices Warranting Policy Attention: Results of a Modified Policy Delphi

Abstract

A technique known as investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) was first introduced to criminal investigations in 2018, and it has since been used by U.S. law enforcement to help identify hundreds of criminal perpetrators and unidentified human remains. As expertise in IGG grows, policymakers have shown interest in regulating it. To help inform these efforts and to promote coherence in IGG governance as it expands, we recruited experts representing a spectrum of IGG-relevant professions and perspectives to identify and prioritize IGG practices for policy attention and to develop policy options for addressing them. In two rounds of a modified policy Delphi, 31 participants prioritized nine IGG practices for policy attention. These top priority practices relate to: consent and notification; case eligibility and criteria; data management, privacy, and security; and governance and accountability. Participants expressed a range of opinions, some strongly held, and did not reach complete consensus with respect to any of the practices. However, convergence was strongest with respect to law enforcement participation in direct-to-consumer genetic genealogy databases against terms of service, which a large majority opposed and almost half evaluated as top priority for policy attention. Participants also voiced strong and consistent concern about management of data and samples collected and generated during IGG and the governance of private laboratories involved in IGG. Our study demonstrates the feasibility and value of engaging with diverse experts over an extended period on a pressing matter of public policy and provides a needed empirical foundation for IGG policymaking.

References
1.
Avni C, Sinai D, Blasbalg U, Toren P . Discovering your presumed father is not your biological father: Psychiatric ramifications of independently uncovered non-paternity events resulting from direct-to-consumer DNA testing. Psychiatry Res. 2023; 323:115142. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115142. View

2.
Guerrini C, Robinson J, Petersen D, McGuire A . Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique. PLoS Biol. 2018; 16(10):e2006906. PMC: 6168121. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906. View

3.
Greytak E, Moore C, Armentrout S . Genetic genealogy for cold case and active investigations. Forensic Sci Int. 2019; 299:103-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.03.039. View

4.
Erlich Y, Shor T, Peer I, Carmi S . Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science. 2018; 362(6415):690-694. PMC: 7549546. DOI: 10.1126/science.aau4832. View

5.
Quinton A, Kelty S, Scudder N . Attitudes towards police use of consumer/private DNA databases in investigations. Sci Justice. 2022; 62(3):263-271. DOI: 10.1016/j.scijus.2022.02.009. View