Public Perspectives on Investigative Genetic Genealogy: Findings from a National Focus Group Study.
Public Perspectives on Investigative Genetic Genealogy: Findings from a National Focus Group Study.
复制标题
公众对调查遗传谱系学的看法：国家焦点小组研究的结果。
DOI：
10.1080/23294515.2024.2336904
复制
发表时间：
2024
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Fullerton,StephanieM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dahlquist,Jacklyn;Robinson,JillO;Daoud,Amira;Bash-Brooks,Whitney;McGuire,AmyL;Guerrini,ChristiJ;Fullerton,StephanieM
背景调查性遗传谱系学（IGG）是一种技术，其涉及将从犯罪现场留下的犯罪者DNA或来自身份不明遗骸的DNA开发的基因型上传到公共遗传谱系数据库以识别遗传亲属，并且通过创建家谱来识别DNA来源的个体。作为政策制定者表现出兴趣，监管IGG，重要的是要了解公众对IGG的观点，以确定是否提出的政策是一致的公众attitudes.MethodsWe进行了八个焦点小组与公众成员（N= 72），从四个地理上不同的美国地区抽样，探索一般的态度和观点方面的IGG的做法，应用程序和政策。五个主要议题进行了探讨，在每个焦点小组：当IGG应使用;谁应该执行IGG;如何处理同意遗传数据库用户;什么样的监督系统应管理IGG从业人员;以及是否通知数据库用户，如果他们的数据参与执法（LE）matching.ResultsParticipants支持IGG在大多数情况下，特别是寒冷和暴力的情况下。然而，对IGG的有利态度受到一些参与者对执法部门的不信任的影响。所有与会者都同意，如果允许IGG，数据库必须通知用户，但他们没有同意如何允许个人数据库用户选择退出，或者如果他们的数据涉及具体调查，是否通知他们。所有与会者一致认为，IGG应该受到一些规定性的指导方针，法规，或问责mechanism.ConclusionsThese调查结果表明，广泛的公众支持IGG，并在发展问责制度的兴趣，其做法。我们的研究为政策制定者，基因组数据库管理员，执法部门和IGG实践中的其他利益相关者提供了有用的见解，并为未来的研究提出了多个方向。
BackgroundInvestigative genetic genealogy (IGG) is a technique that involves uploading genotypes developed from perpetrator DNA left at a crime scene, or DNA from unidentified remains, to public genetic genealogy databases to identify genetic relatives and, through the creation of a family tree, the individual who was the source of the DNA. As policymakers demonstrate interest in regulating IGG, it is important to understand public perspectives on IGG to determine whether proposed policies are aligned with public attitudes.MethodsWe conducted eight focus groups with members of the public (N= 72), sampled from four geographically diverse US regions, to explore general attitudes and perspectives regarding aspects of IGG practices, applications, and policies. Five major topics were explored in each focus group: when IGG should be used; who should perform IGG; how to approach consent for genetic database users; what systems of oversight should govern IGG practitioners; and whether to notify database users if their data are involved in law enforcement (LE) matching.ResultsParticipants were supportive of IGG in most scenarios, especially for cold and violent cases. The favorable attitudes toward IGG were, however, tempered by distrust of law enforcement among some participants. All participants agreed that databases must inform users if IGG is allowed, but they did not agree on how individual database users should be allowed to opt out or whether to notify them if their data are involved in specific investigations. All participants agreed that IGG should be subject to some prescriptive guidelines, regulations, or accountability mechanisms.ConclusionsThese findings suggest broad public support for IGG, and interest in developing systems of accountability for its practice. Our study provides useful insight for policy makers, genomic database stewards, law enforcement, and other stakeholders in IGG’s practice, and suggests multiple directions for future research.