2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.01.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Approaching ethical, legal and social issues of emerging forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) technologies comprehensively: Reply to ‘Forensic DNA phenotyping: Predicting human appearance from crime scene material for investigative purposes’ by Manfred Kayser

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
52
0
2

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(54 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
0
52
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The prime motivation behind this approach is to narrow down the group of potential trace donors in cases where standard genetic fingerprinting, such as short-tandem repeat (STR) profiling, could not provide any matching information with a priori known profiles [1,2]. FDP may thereby help focusing police investigations on a (limited) group of suspects, although the legal and ethical framework for such approaches is currently subject to intensive debate (see, for example, [3][4][5][6][7]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The prime motivation behind this approach is to narrow down the group of potential trace donors in cases where standard genetic fingerprinting, such as short-tandem repeat (STR) profiling, could not provide any matching information with a priori known profiles [1,2]. FDP may thereby help focusing police investigations on a (limited) group of suspects, although the legal and ethical framework for such approaches is currently subject to intensive debate (see, for example, [3][4][5][6][7]).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such a concept encapsulates the notion that forensic DNA phenotyping techniques might overcome the limitations of information presented by eyewitness testimonies, which are perceived as fragile, pervaded with emotions, motivations, subjectivities and information gaps. When reacting to that argument, several social scientists have been outlining, on the one hand, the risks of perceiving science and technology as immune to social bias, and, on the other, the socially decontextualized nature of information provided by forensic DNA phenotyping, especially when directly compared with eyewitness accounts that often provide context about the events of a crime (Toom et al, 2016).…”
Section: Forensic Dna Phenotypingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Proponents of this view have argued that this demarcation would bypass most, though not all, privacy issues. Even if we accepted that FDP should be considered equivalent to an eyewitness statement, however, this would not make FDP ethically unproblematic, because eyewitness evidence is never an isolated statement about an objective fact but has its own associated ethical issues (Toom et al 2016). Human perception is inevitably shaped by people's previous experiences, moral, social and political reference points, and other conscious or unconscious biases.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We note three concerns here that are most prominently discussed in the literature. First, given that FDP tests are probabilistic, concerns have been raised about the nature of information FDP can provide, and the possibility of the predictive nature of the information being misunderstood (Cino 2017;Enserink 2011;Sankar 2012;Seo et al 2017;Toom et al 2016). These concerns are compounded by expectation-generating for-profit companies such as Parabon Nanolabs, which markets FDP as a technology capable of creating composite faces of individuals from a sample of DNA alone; often based on tests which are under developed, scientifically not documented, and un-validated (Gannon 2017;Wienroth 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%