There is scarce knowledge about the influence of the professional group, education, and age on public perspectives on the risks and benefits of forensic DNA databases. Based on data collected through an online questionnaire applied to 628 individuals in Portugal, this research fills that gap. More than three quarters of the respondents believed that the Portuguese forensic DNA database can help fight crime more efficiently and develop a swifter and more accurate justice, whereas only approximately half thought that it could deter and prevent crime. Lack of security and control over access to data and the future unforeseen misuses of genetic information were the most relevant risks selected by the participants. Health care and life sciences professionals were more likely to agree with all the benefits, as opposed to those working in the field of law enforcement. More educated and older participants disagreed with benefits more often. Concerns with the risks increased with age.
AllumN.SturgisP.TabouraziD.Brunton-SmithI. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17, 35-54.
2.
AndersonC.StackhouseR.ShawA.IredaleR. (2010). The national DNA database on trial: Engaging young people in South Wales with genetics. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 146-162.
3.
BeauregardE.BouchardM. (2010). Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1160-1166.
4.
BeauregardE.MartineauM. (2014). No body, no crime? The role of forensic awareness in avoiding police detection in cases of sexual homicide. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 213-220.
5.
BieberF. R. (2006). Turning base hits into earned runs: Improving the effectiveness of forensic DNA data bank programs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34, 222-233.
6.
ChoM. K.SankarP. (2004). Forensic genetics and ethical, legal and social implications beyond the clinic. Nature Genetics, 36, 8-12.
7.
Chow-WhiteP.DusterT. (2011). Do health and forensic DNA databases increase racial disparities?PLoS Medicine, 8, e1001100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001100
8.
CurtisC. (2009). Public perceptions and expectations of the forensic use of DNA: Results of a preliminary study. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 29, 313-324.
9.
CurtisC. (2014). Public understandings of the forensic use of DNA: Positivity, misunderstandings, and cultural concerns. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 34, 21-32.
10.
DrorI. E.HampikianG. (2011). Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Science & Justice, 51, 204-208.
11.
DundesL. (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 & Society, 21, 369-375.
12.
GameroJ.-J.RomeroJ.-L.PeraltaJ.-L.CarvalhoM.Corte-RealF. (2007). Spanish public awareness regarding DNA profile databases in forensic genetics: What type of DNA profiles should be included?Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 598-604.
13.
GameroJ.-J.RomeroJ.-L.PeraltaJ.-L.Corte-RealF.GuillénM.AnjosM.-J. (2008). A study of Spanish attitudes regarding the custody and use of forensic DNA databases. Forensic Science International, 2, 138-149.
GierynT. F. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795.
16.
GuillénM.LareuM. V.PestoniC.SalasA. (2000). Ethical-legal problems of DNA databases in criminal investigation. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 266-271.
17.
JangH.JooH.-J.ZhaoJ. (Solomon). (2010). Determinants of public confidence in police: An international perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 57-68.
18.
JohnsonP.WilliamsR. (2004). Post-conviction DNA testing: The UK’s first “exoneration” case?Science & Justice, 44, 77-82.
19.
KayeD. H. (2006). Behavioral genetics research and criminal DNA databases. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69, 259-299.
20.
KazemianL.PeaseK.FarringtonD. P. (2010). DNA retention policies: The potential contribution of criminal career research. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 48-64.
21.
LearyD.PeaseK. (2003). DNA and the active criminal population. Crime Prevention & Community Safety, 5, 7-12.
22.
LevittM. (2007). Forensic databases: Benefits and ethical and social costs. British Medical Bulletin, 83, 235-248.
23.
LudwigA.FraserJ. (2013). Effective use of forensic science in volume crime investigations: Identifying recurring themes in the literature. Science & Justice, 54, 81-88.
24.
LynchM.ColeS.McNallyR.JordanK. (2008). Truth machine: The contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
25.
MachadoH.SantosF. (2011). Popular press and forensic genetics in Portugal: Expectations and disappointments regarding two cases of missing children. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 303-318.
26.
MachadoH.SantosF.SilvaS. (2011). Prisoners’ expectations of the national forensic DNA database: Surveillance and reconfiguration of individual rights. Forensic Science International, 210, 139-143.
27.
MachadoH.SilvaS. (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: Genetics, 8, 132-136.
28.
MachadoH.SilvaS.CunhaM. (2012). Multiple views of DNA surveillance: The surveilled, the surveillants and the academics. In WalleG.HerrewegenE.ZurawskiN. (Eds.), Crime, security and surveillance: Effects for the surveillant and the surveilled (pp. 179-194). The Hague, Netherlands: Boom Eleven.
29.
McCartneyC. (2012). Of weighty reasons and indiscriminate blankets: The retention of DNA for forensic purposes. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 51, 245-260.
SantosF.MachadoH.SilvaS. (2013). Forensic DNA databases in European countries: Is size linked to performance?Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 9, 1-13.
32.
SchneiderP. M.MartinP. D. (2001). Criminal DNA databases: The European situation. Forensic Science International, 119, 232-238.
33.
StackhouseR.AndersonC.ShawA.IredaleR. (2010). Avoiding the “usual suspects”: Young people’s views of the National DNA Database. New Genetics and Society, 29, 149-166.
34.
Van CampN.DierickxK. (2008). The retention of forensic DNA samples: A socio-ethical evaluation of current practices in the EU. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 606-610.
35.
WilliamsR.JohnsonP. (2004). “Wonderment and dread”: Representations of DNA in ethical disputes about forensic DNA databases. New Genetics and Society, 23, 205-223.
36.
WilliamsR.JohnsonP. (2005). Inclusiveness, effectiveness and intrusiveness: Issues in the developing uses of DNA profiling in support of criminal investigations. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 545-558.
Wilson-KovacsD.WyattD.HauskellerC. (2012). “A Faustian bargain?” Public voices on forensic DNA technologies and the National DNA database. New Genetics and Society, 31, 285-298.
