The (De)materialization of Criminal Bodies in Forensic DNA Phenotyping

Abstract

Forensic DNA phenotyping is a genetic technology that might be used in criminal investigations. Based on DNA samples of the human body found at crime scenes, it allows to infer externally visible characteristics (such as eye, hair and skin colour) and continental-based biogeographical ancestry. By indicating the probable visible appearance of a criminal suspect, forensic DNA phenotyping allows to narrow down the focus of a criminal investigation. In this article, drawing on interviews with forensic geneticists, we explore how their narratives translate contemporary focus on criminal molecularized bodies. We propose the concept of (de)materialization to approach three aspects of the forensic geneticists’ views. The first regards considering bodies as mutable entities. The second relates to socially contingent meanings attributed to bodies. The third regards to controversies surrounding data reliability. By reflecting upon the (de)materialization of criminal bodies, forensic geneticists juxtapose the defence and unsettling of forensic DNA phenotyping claims.

Governing expectations of forensic innovations in society: the case of FDP in Germany

“…This interviewee problematizes biogeographic ancestry with regards to the moment in a criminal investigation when the forensic resultwhich does not provide predictions about specific visible characteristicsmixes with stereotyped images of investigators about specific population groups. Some forensic geneticists engage with concerns actively argued by social scientists about how such differences correspond with socially constructed categories used to classify and describe population groups, which may have a discriminating effect (Granja, Machado, and Queirós 2020;Toom 2016).…”

Long-range familial searches in recreational DNA databases: expansion of affected populations, the participatory turn, and the co-production of biovalue

“…However, those only relate to the cases publicly revealed; there are many others under investigation. According to the author, the large majority of long-range familial searches has been led by Parabon NanoLabs, a company offering forensic services, such as genetic genealogy, kinship inference, and forensic DNA phenotyping (on this respect see also Granja, Machado, and Queirós 2020;Machado and Granja 2020;Wienroth 2020).…”

“…The second wave relates to the establishment, expansion, and use of national forensic DNA databases across the world (Hindmarsh and Prainsack 2010; Williams 2010) and the associated transnational exchange of DNA data Granja 2018, 2019;Machado, Granja, and Amelung 2020;Prainsack andToom 2013, 2010). The third wave encapsulates the development and increasing application of technologies that go beyond identification, such as familial searches and forensic DNA phenotyping (Granja and Machado 2019;Granja, Machado, and Queirós 2020;Haimes 2006;Murphy 2010;Samuel and Prainsack 2018;Wienroth 2018Wienroth , 2020.…”

“…The concept of biolegality, proposed by Lynch and McNally, outlines how policing and technoscience interact to create new sets of active "suspects" (Lynch and McNally 2009). Up until this point, biolegality was restricted to forensic DNA databases and forensic technologies (Granja and Machado 2020;Lawless 2012).…”

The Netherlands

“…The examples of forensic DNA phenotyping and familial searching in the Dutch case illustrate the capacity of contemporary forensic genetics to render 'race' and 'family' as tools to produce leads to support criminal investigation (M'charek et al, 2020). The ethical and social implications of both forensic DNA phenotyping and familial searching are paramount (Granja & Machado, 2019;Granja, Machado, & Queirós, 2020).…”