Britain's DNA database

It was recently revealed that information from the UK's contentious DNA database is being shared with overseas law enforcement agencies for use in tracking down criminals. This is just another in the long line of controversies which have surrounded this initiate since its inception in 1995.

When Labour came to power in 1997, the database contained just 700,000 DNA samples, taken from those arrested on criminal charges. However, it now holds the records of around three million British citizens, expected to rise to 4.2 million by 2008, making it by far the largest such file in the world in terms of proportion of the population recorded. What makes the database even more controversial is that 140,000 of its samples are from those who were arrested but never charged with any offence. This controversy was highlighted in January when it was discovered that some 24,000 under-18s who were never cautioned still had their files stored in the database.

While one can obviously understand the government's eagerness to keep these DNA records and use them to help convict those guilty of crime, in my opinion this database is just another step, along with the proposals for compulsory ID cards containing biometric data, towards greater governmental monitoring and control of the population. The fact they have kept such a high number of records from those who were not even charged with a crime indicates that there is something suspicious about the system. Various groups, such as GeneWatch UK and the Liberal Democrat Party

, have raised questions about this system. While no one denies the fact that genetic fingerprinting is an invaluable tool in the identification and conviction of wanted criminals, many believe that further debate should be carried out as to the rules governing the collection, storage and use of such records and their implications for human rights. So far the Home Office has managed to act in a fairly unconstrained way and surely it is now time for some discussion of this highly contentious area, particularly given the fact that once DNA samples are collected and stored, they are a permanent record.

There are of course, those who hold the complete opposite opinion and support the idea of keeping a DNA database. Alec Jeffrys, the inventor of genetic fingerprinting, believes that, in fact, every British citizen, and indeed world citizen, should have their DNA recorded. He argues that this way the question of discrimination and targeted genetic recording disappears and that it would be an invaluable means of identification for crimes and also in cases of disasters such as the 2004 Asian tsunami.

Despite understanding to some extent the government's motives for compiling this DNA database and also the compulsory ID card initiative, I am personally opposed to both ideas. While the latter scheme has attracted plenty of press attention and public debate, the topic of keeping genetic records has, for whatever reason, remained less conspicuous. Such a controversial issue with such long-term implications surely deserves to be discussed sooner rather than later.