Skip to main content

Ethical considerations of a National DNA database.

Plans for a national DNA database  will be revealed by the Prime Minister this week. This is the same proposal the Tories and Liberal Democrats opposed when presented by the Blair government because they argued it posed  a threat to civil liberties. This time it is expected to offer an 'opt-out' clause for those who do not wish their data to be stored; exactly how this would operate isn't yet clear. But does it matter and does it really pose a threat to civil liberties?

When it comes to biology and ethics we tend to have a distorted view of DNA and genetics. This is for two reasons. The first is that it is thought that our genome somehow represents the individual as a code that then gets translated. This is biologically speaking wrong. DNA is a template and part of the machinery for making proteins. It isn't a code in anything like the sense of being a 'blueprint' or 'book of life'.  Although these metaphors are used often they are just that, metaphors.  It is however a very important bit of biology and it does have the potential for saying something about our health or our potential health; and it is this that poses the greatest problem ethically.

The science of genomics seeks to associate risk of disease or ill health with particular gene mutations or with patterns of expression. The value of the database is precisely that it enhances the potential for finding these associations and potentially developing treatments targeted at those gene mutations.  Databases already exist but they lack the breadth of a truly national database.

The ethical argument in favour of a national database is a utilitarian one; that the benefits to be gained will outweigh the small risk that the database might be misused.  The database would be anonymised so that names are not associated with it or at least not in a way they could readily be accessed by other than those working on projects requiring a study of cohorts of individuals.  The risk is that this could be  breached and pose problems if, for example, insurance companies had access to the risk assessments.

Potentially there are other issues that might arise. For example, if it is found that a particular mutation has a significant chance of affecting the health of those individuals who carry it, then should they be informed? This is a problem because many people may not wish to be informed, particularly if there is no cure for the problem. It might affect their lifestyle as a sword of Damocles hanging over them and it might affect their potential for life or health insurance should insurance companies insist on declarations of whether they had been informed.  It is also not clear at what level of risk if at all people should be informed.

These are genuine concerns particularly as such mutations are likely to be passed on to their offspring.  It would also, therefore, present the individual with a dilemma: whether or not to inform others in the family. These are real issues and if such a database is established then there would have to be assurances that they could be dealt with. One way of dealing with it would be to state at the outset that no individual would be informed of any link; that the database would only be for research purposes and not part of the health care of the individual. Just how this could be expected to hold if the projects using the database become successful is difficult to predict. No doubt there will be strong arguments forthcoming that individuals will have a right to know. Perversely then the very grounds for opposing the database then becomes the grounds for opening access, civil liberties!

Why 'Opt out' consent may not be ethical

Since publishing this post I have considered the need to add a few words about the proposed 'opt out' strategy for consent. An opt out strategy for the data base assumes informed consent to inclusion  unless someone specifically indicates they do not wish to be included.  Much hangs on its credibility and how it will work. In this case I am dubious about  the robustness or efficacy of 'opt out'. It is unclear how this could work in a research context. In a clinical context it can work where it is clear what the consequences might be of either being included or not. In the case of research this is not clear if only because the outcome of the research inevitably remains unclear, at least in the early stages.

The history of ethics in scientific research is fairly recent. Prior to the development of ethical review in research and the development of key principles and how they would be applied, patients and other subjects could be recruited without proper consent. We should be wary of breaching that principle. Proper consent is not simply that they say 'yes' to being included, but that they agree after being informed appropriately of potential outcomes and benefits and potential harms to those in the trial. We may feel that a database offers little or no potential for harm, but this depends of a number of factors: how the information will be protected, how it will be used and what will happen to the information as the studies based on it develop. This last point is clearly an unknown.  Without clear safeguards it would be relatively easy to decide the data could be used in ways not envisaged at the outset.  If this was done then it would be done without consent of those included in the database, because their positive consent had not been obtained to be included.

Whether such a breach could occur may depend then on the arguments presented. I have no doubt that similar utilitarian arguments will be marshalled in favour. It will be argued that the benefits would outweigh the potential harms and thus justify a breach of the normal principle.  Furthermore, it is possible that the clamour for disclosure will come on civil liberties grounds with arguments that individuals have a right to know what information is held about them in relation to the outcome of any research. We need to be vigilant about breaches of the fundamental principle of informed consent.


  1. They're welcome to try and take my DNA Ray but they risk losing the use of their vocal chords with a short, sharp punch to the larynx highly likely. But first they have to catch me and then tie me down and deal with my flailing fists. Basically, not a cat-in-hell's chance. I would die first before a needle came within a foot of my donating arm.

    1. I think unless they can win the public over on this and give assurances then it will be difficult. Else research data would be obtained on a mass scale without proper informed consent. There are other examples of 'opt out' in clinical practice. HIV testing in pregnancy is one where blood will be tested unless the pregnant woman specifically requests that it not be. It does run the risk of breaching one of the key principles in research ethics.


Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic,  particularly in reducing stress.  But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved?   We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so?  New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.  Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain.  It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits.  Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being .  So far, so good.  We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy.  We kno