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
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
复制标题
全面处理新兴法医 DNA 表型分析 (FDP) 技术的伦理、法律和社会问题：回复 Manfred Kayser 的“法医 DNA 表型分析：从犯罪现场材料中预测人类外观以用于调查目的”
DOI：
10.1016/j.fsigen.2016.01.010
复制
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Toom V
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Toom V
在最近一期关于法医遗传学新趋势的杂志特刊中，Manfred Kayser对法医DNA表型（FDP）的发展、机遇和挑战进行了回顾。在他的文章中，他认为FDP技术——比如确定眼睛、头发和皮肤的颜色——应该被视为类似于“生物证人”，有可能提供比传统证人更准确的信息。我们和曼弗雷德·凯瑟有着共同的目标，那就是支持法医遗传学的科学进步。然而，我们不太相信这样的假设，即改善社会安全的力量仅仅（甚至主要）在于技术领域。正如几十年的科学技术研究表明的那样，技术绝不仅仅是进步的物质载体。相反，它们是科学和社会实践的多方面综合企业。换句话说，技术永远是实践中的技术。这就是为什么技术创新的伦理评估，如果做得好，是一项如此困难的交易：仅仅是原则驱动的伦理——尽管它可能是最容易做到的——永远不会掌握和解决技术在现实世界中是如何被理解和使用的混乱。正是在这种情况下，我们对凯泽呼吁加快FDP的研究感到担忧，同时他对个人安全和个人权利的处理也很狭隘。这种还原论的理解无法捕捉到关于个人自由、自主和团结等概念的伦理讨论的丰富性[5-7]。相反，它强调了技术的前景，而没有适当考虑更广泛的道德、法律和社会层面，以及围绕FDP技术的实际实施的问题。
In a recent special issue of the journal on new trends in forensic genetics, Manfred Kayser contributed a review of developments, opportunities and challenges of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). In his article he argues that FDP technologies—such as determining eye, hair and skin color—should be considered as akin to a “biological witness” with the potential of providing more accurate information than traditional eye witnesses [1].We share with Manfred Kayser the goal of supporting the scientific progress of forensic genetics. We are, however, less convinced by the assumption that the power to improve the safety of our society lies simply (or even primarily) in technology [2]. Technologies are—as decades of research in Science and Technology Studies have shown—never merely material vehicles of progress. Instead they are a multifaceted conglomerate of scientific and societal practices [3]. In other words, technology is always technology-in-practice [4]. This is exactly the reason why the ethical evaluation of technological innovation, when done well, is such a difficult trade: a merely principle-driven ethics—although it may be easiest to do—never grasps and addresses the messiness of how technologies are understood and used in the real world. It is in this light that we are concerned about Kayser’s call to expedite FDP research, when coupled with his narrow treatment of both personal safety and individual rights. Such a reductionist understanding cannot capture the richness of ethical discussions about notions such as individual freedom, autonomy, and solidarity [5-7]. Rather, it foregrounds technology without giving due consideration to wider ethical, legal and social dimensions as well as issues around the practical implementation of FDP technologies.