The public’s understanding of forensic DNA databases remains undertheorized and few empirical studies have been produced. This article aims to address this omission by exploring the answers to an open-ended question taken from an online questionnaire regarding the reasons for individuals’ voluntarily accepting or refusing to allow their DNA profile to be included in the Portuguese forensic DNA database. The analysis is undertaken from the perspective of biological citizenship and the simultaneous empowering and disempowering effects of surveillance. The results indicate a pragmatic ethical framework that is linked to the cultural and emotional elements of altruism, resistance, stigma, and social representations of what is beneficial or harmful to the individual and to society. These subjectivities are anchored in commonplace images and metaphors for genetics, DNA, and forensic science that circulate in the messages transmitted by the media which pervade everyday life; hierarchies of trust in science and the justice system; and moral categories associated with the individual self-judgment in relation to crime, surveillance, and social order.
AndersonClaudineStackhouseRebeccaShawAnitaIredaleRachel. 2010. “The National DNA Database on Trial: Engaging Young People in South Wales with Genetics.” Public Understanding of Science20 (2): 146–62.
2.
AtkinsonPaulGlasnerPeterLockMargaret, eds. 2009. Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping the New Genomic Era. London, England: Routledge.
3.
BrewerPaul R.LeyBarbara L.2010. “Media Use and Public Perceptions of DNA Evidence.” Science Communication32 (1): 93–117.
4.
CampbellTimothy,SitzeAdam, eds. 2013. Biopolitics: A Reader. London, England: Duke University Press.
5.
CauchiJacqueline A.KnepperPaul. 2009. “The Empire, the Police, and the Introduction of Fingerprint Technology in Malta.” Criminology & Criminal Justice9 (1): 73–92.
6.
CavenderGrayDeutschSarah K.2007. “CSI and Moral Authority: The Police and Science.” Crime, Media, Culture3 (1): 67–81.
7.
CharmazKathy. 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
ClarkeAdele. 2005. Situational Analysis: Grounded Theory after the Postmodern Turn. San Francisco, CA: Sage.
9.
ColeSimon. 2001. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10.
ColeSimon. 2013. “DeNeutralizing Identification: S. & Marper v. United Kingdom, Biometric Databases, Uniqueness, Privacy and Human Rights.” In Identification and Registration Practices in Transnational Perspective. People, Papers and Practices, edited by AboutIlsenBrownJamesLonerganGayle, 77–97. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
11.
ColeSimonLynchMichael. 2006. “The Social and Legal Construction of Suspects.” Annual Review of Law and Social Science2:39–60.
12.
CurtisCate. 2009. “Public Perceptions and Expectations of the Forensic Use of DNA: Results of a Preliminary Study.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society29 (4): 313–24.
13.
CurtisCate. 2014. “Public Understandings of the Forensic Use of DNA: Positivity, Misunderstandings, and Cultural Concerns.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society34 (1-2): 21–32.
14.
CutterAnthony M.2006. “To Clear or to Convict? The Role of Genomics in Criminal Justice.” Genomics, Society and Policy2 (1): 1–15.
15.
DundesLauren. 2001. “Is the American Public Ready to Embrace DNA as a Crime-fighting Tool? A Survey Assessing Support for DNA Databases.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society21 (5): 369–75.
16.
DusterTroy. 2006. “Explaining Differential Trust of DNA Forensic Technology: Grounded Assessment or Inexplicable Paranoia?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics34 (2): 293–300.
17.
DusterTroy. 2012. “Foreword: CSI in Fiction, Fantasy and Fact.” In Tracing Technologies: Prisoners’ Views in the Era of CSI, edited by MachadoHelenaPrainsackBarbara, ix–xviii. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
18.
FinnJonathan. 2005. “Photographing Fingerprints: Data Collection and State Surveillance.” Surveillance & Society3 (1): 21–44.
19.
GameroJoaquín-JoseRomeroJosé-LuisPeraltaJuan-LuisCarvalhoMónicaCorte-RealFrancisco. 2007. “Spanish Public Awareness Regarding DNA Profile Databases in Forensic Genetics: What Type of DNA Profiles Should Be Included?” Journal of Medical Ethics33 (10): 598–604.
20.
GeverMartha. 2005. “The Spectacle of Crime, Digitized. CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and Social Anatomy.” European Journal of Cultural Studies8 (4): 445–63.
21.
HeathDeborahRappRaynaTaussigKaren-Sue. 2004. “Genetic Citizenship.” In A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics, edited by NugentDavidVincentJoan, 152–67. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
HeinemannTorstenLemkeThomasPrainsackBarbara. 2012. “Risky Profiles: Societal Dimensions of Forensic Uses of DNA Profiling Technologies.” New Genetics and Society31 (3): 249–58.
24.
HindmarshRichardPrainsackBarbara, eds. 2010. Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
25.
JasanoffSheila. 2006. “Just Evidence: The Limits of Science in the Legal Process.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics34 (2): 328–41.
26.
JasanoffSheila. 2011. Reframing Rights. Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
JasanoffSheila. 2012. “Genealogies of STS.” Social Studies of Science42 (3): 435–41.
28.
KrimskySheldonSimoncelliTania. 2011. Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties. New York: Columbia University Press.
29.
KruseCorinna. 2010. “Producing Absolute Truth: CSI Science as Wishful Thinking.” American Anthropologist112 (1): 79–91.
30.
Law 5/2008. 2008. Aprova a Criação de Uma Base de Dados de Perfis de ADN Para Fins de Identificação Civil e Criminal[Approves the Creation of a DNA Profile Database for Civil and Criminal Investigation Purposes]. Diário da República, 1.a série, 30, 12 de Fevereiro. Accessed December 15, 2014. http://dre.pt/pdf1sdip/2008/02/03000/0096200968.pdf[in Portuguese].
31.
LazerDavid, ed. 2004. DNA and the Criminal Justice System: The Technology of Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32.
LeeChul-JooScheufeleDietram A.LewensteinBruce V.2005. “Public Attitudes Toward Emerging Technologies: Examining the Interactive Effects of Cognitions and Affect on Public Attitudes Toward Nanotechnology.” Science Communication27 (2): 240–67.
33.
LemkeThomas. 2011. Biopolitics: An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York University Press.
34.
LeyBarbara L.JankowskiNatalieBrewerPaul R.2010. “Investigating CSI: Portrayals of DNA Testing on a Forensic Crime Show and Their Potential Effects.” Public Understanding of Science21 (1): 51–67.
35.
LynchMichaelMcNallyRuth. 2009. “Forensic DNA Databases: The Co-production of Law and Surveillance Technology.” In Handbook of Genetics and Society: Mapping the New Genomics Era, edited by AtkinsonPaulGlasnerPeterLockMargaret, 283–301. London, England: Routledge.
36.
LyonDavid. 2007. Surveillance Studies: An Overview. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
37.
MachadoHelenaFroisCatarina. 2014. “Aspiring to Modernization. Historical Evolution and Current Trends of State Surveillance in Portugal.” In Histories of Surveillance in Europe and Beyond, edited by BoersmaKeesBrakelRosamunde vanFonioChiaraWagenaarPieter, 65–78. New York: Routledge.
38.
MachadoHelenaPrainsackBarbara. 2012. Tracing Technologies: Prisoners’ Views in the Era of CSI. Farnham, England: Ashgate.
39.
MachadoHelenaSantosFilipe. 2011. “Popular Press and Forensic Genetics in Portugal: Expectations and Disappointments Regarding Two Cases of Missing Children.” Public Understanding of Science20 (3): 303–18.
40.
MachadoHelenaSantosFilipeSilvaSusana. 2011. “Prisoners’ Expectations of the National Forensic DNA Database: Surveillance and Reconfiguration of Individual Rights.” Forensic Science International210 (1-3): 139–43.
41.
MachadoHelenaSantosFilipeSilvaSusana. 2012. “Prisoners’ Views of CSI’s Portrayal of Forensic Identification Technologies: A Grounded Assessment.” New Genetics and Society31 (3): 271–84.
42.
MachadoHelenaSilvaSusana. 2009. “Informed Consent in Forensic DNA Databases: Volunteering, Constructions of Risk and Identity Categorization.” BioSocieties4:335–48.
43.
MachadoHelenaSilvaSusana. 2014. “‘Would You Accept Having Your DNA Profile Inserted in the National Forensic DNA Database? Why?’ Results of a Questionnaire Applied in Portugal.” Forensic Science International: Genetics8 (1): 132–36.
44.
MayringPhilipp. 2004. “Qualitative Content Analysis.” In A Companion to Qualitative Research, edited by FlickUweKardorffErnst vonSteinkeInes, 266–69. London, England: Sage.
45.
McCartneyCarole. 2006. “The DNA Expansion Programme and Criminal Investigation.” British Journal of Criminology46 (2): 175–92.
46.
NelkinDorothySusan LindeeM.1995. The DNA Mystique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon. New York: W H. Freeman.
47.
PetrynaAdriana. 2002. Life Exposed: Biological Citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
PrainsackBarbaraKitzbergerMartin. 2009. “DNA behind Bars: Other Ways of Knowing Forensic DNA Technologies.” Social Studies of Science39 (1): 51–79.
49.
PrainsackBarbaraToomVictor. 2010. “The Prüm Regime. Situated Dis/empowerment in Transnational DNA Profile Exchange.” British Journal of Criminology50:1117–35.
50.
RamanSujathaTuttonRichard. 2009. “Life, Science, and Biopower.” Science, Technology, & Human Values35 (5): 711–34.
51.
RoseNikolas. 2007. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-first Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
52.
RoseNikolas. 2013. “The Human Sciences in a Biological Age.” Theory, Culture & Society30 (1): 3–34.
53.
RoseNikolasNovasCarlos. 2005. “Biological Citizenship.” In Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems, edited by CollierStephen J.OngAihwa, 439–63. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
54.
StackhouseRebeccaAndersonClaudineShawAnitaIredaleRachel. 2010. “Avoiding the ‘Usual Suspects’: Young People’s Views of the National DNA Database.” New Genetics and Society29 (2): 149–66.
55.
ToomVictor. 2012. “Bodies of Science and Law: Forensic DNA Profiling, Biological Bodies, and Biopower.” Journal of Law and Society39 (1): 150–66.
56.
Van CampNathanDierickxKris. 2008. “The Retention of Forensic DNA Samples: A Socio-ethical Evaluation of Current Practices in the EU.” Journal of Medical Ethics34 (8): 606–10.
57.
WebsterAndrew, ed. 2006. New Technologies in Health Care. Challenge, Change and Innovation. Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
58.
WilliamsRobinJohnsonPaul. 2004. “‘Wonderment and Dread’: Representations of DNA in Ethical Disputes about Forensic DNA Databases.” New Genetics and Society23 (2): 205–23.
59.
WilliamsRobinJohnsonPaul. 2005. “Inclusiveness, Effectiveness and Intrusiveness: Issues in the Developing Uses of DNA Profiling in Support of Criminal Investigations.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics33 (3): 545–58.
60.
WilliamsRobinWienrothMatthias. 2014. “Suspects, Victims and Others: Producing and Sharing Forensic Genetic Knowledge.” In The Right to Know and the Right Not to Know: Genetic Privacy and Responsibility, edited by ChadwickRuthLevittMairiShickleDarren, 70–84. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61.
Wilson-KovacsDana. 2014. “‘Clearly Necessary’, ‘Wonderful’ and ‘Engrossing’? Mass Observation Correspondents Discuss Forensic Technologies.” Sociological Research Online19 (3): 1–16.
62.
Wilson-KovacsDanaWyattDavidHauskellerChristine. 2012. “‘A Faustian Bargain?’ Public Voices on Forensic DNA Technologies and the National DNA Database.” New Genetics and Society31 (3): 285–98.
