:blink: That's odd.

I have a question. What do you all think about the idea of country making all of their citizens submit their DNA into a government databank? I'm doing a project on it and wondering what people's opinions on the subject are.

I can't help thinking it'd lead to innocents being accused of crimes because their DNA just happened to be at the scene, for unrelated reasons.

FuzzyLobster wrote:I have a question. What do you all think about the idea of country making all of their citizens submit their DNA into a government databank? I'm doing a project on it and wondering what people's opinions on the subject are.

It's a blatant and unreasonable invasion of privacy for at best no real gain. DNA analysis is far from perfect; as David said you'll get cross-contamination, and you'll get other false positives anyway (crossover, experimental error, etc etc). With a larger database of DNA of mostly innocent people to compare against, you simply increase the number of false positives you get, thus making the data less valuable.

Further, on the privacy violation subject - once you've got the data, it's really easy to make arguments about who *else* should be able to access it. Insurance companies. Potential employers. And so on. And, of course, it needs to be secure. In a world of government employees leaving sensitive data on trains all over the place and poorly secured databases getting hacked into and stolen, do you want your DNA looked after by the caring hands of the government? Thought not.

Good, 'cuz that's the side I'm arguing in the debate. :P

Thought of those, plus the possibility that it could lead to sloppy police work; The first thing they'd do is test DNA, then (because they don't have to prove anything to obtain a warrant for a sample) unfairly target any matches as subjects. And it's entirely possible that a jury will convict based solely on that evidence, due to show like CSI that put out the idea that forensics are all you'll need.

Besides, processing all of those samples will take a lot of time. Presumably any government would make this the first priority of DNA-testing companies to get things done more quickly, which will in turn push back the analysis of samples from actual crime scenes, which are backlogged already.

I know I'm answering my own question already, but I'm not even sure if my partner is showing up (plus I just know if he starts talking about his "conservative values," we are twelve kinds of screwed because he's really the only one in the class with strong right-wing views) and this is good practice.

Sloppy police work is a good point, and false convictions because of a false belief in the unshakeableness of DNA evidence is already a serious problem, which would only get worse with a larger DNA database. It's not just TV like CSI responsible for spreading that idea, but expert witnesses, prosecution lawyers, and even judicial directions. It's placed on a towering pedestal as the evidence to end all evidence, and it's really, really not.

Awful lot of money to process all the samples as well.

Ah, that one ultra-conservative in class... my lab partner is that guy. Complete lunatic. Thinks fascism is a pretty good idea.

As for the debate itself, I'd strongly advise trying to get as many statistics and studies on the actual reliability of DNA evidence, rates of false convictions, etc. to hand as possible, because the only real argument for national DNA profiling is "the privacy violations are justified because it'll STOP CRIME LOL", and quoting actual scientific evidence for your position is the best way of defeating the myths about its effectiveness.

Sentynel wrote:Ah, that one ultra-conservative in class... my lab partner is that guy. Complete lunatic. Thinks fascism is a pretty good idea.

Ouch...I don't like the idea of having the same lab partner for all labs in a subject in uni...

And one more point about the DNA database stuff: the DNA would also show markers for various health-related information and traits of the individual. I wouldn't like my personal information in someone else's hand.

Talking about DNA, do you feel taking fingerprints too is wrong? I ask because:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unique_Ide ... y_of_India
http://worlduin.blogspot.com/2009/11/in ... llion.html
That one has worried me, but the benefits seem to overrule anything else. And it is not like they will be fingerprint contamination or disclosure of health details. And anyway, no one is talking about using it for crime. It would be impossible to go through a billion prints.

Okay, so it's not politics but...

Nice Job Breaking it Scientists

Not again. I hope they get the results in my lifetime.
Nobody answered my question. :( But it is okay- I think such cards are fine.

FuzzyLobster wrote:Okay, so it's not politics but...

Nice Job Breaking it Scientists

It's not broken, it just needs modification to address concerns it might break!

Now my uncle has met the Prime Minister of India! India had recently signed a deal with Saudi Arabia and my uncle had gone with the PM to Riyadh. He had signed a document from India's side and met with King Abdullah and the rest. Can you believe that? Why are all my relatives like that? Another one had worked directly under the Indian president and was heading development of some big rockets. And another had first started teleconference between India and France (or something like that). And yet another directly under the Education Minister of India. And yet another is a High Court Judge. How come I don't have any of the family genes? Huh? So unfair. *grumbles*.

*comes from an unremarkable family* At least, I think so, but it's really big so I can't check everyone.

Sentynel wrote:It's not broken, it just needs modification to address concerns it might break!

Excuses, excuses.

I think I won my debate today.

FuzzyLobster wrote:I think I won my debate today.

I should think so too.



One of my distant ancestors was a knight in the 1700s or something...

FuzzyLobster wrote:*comes from an unremarkable family* At least, I think so, but it's really big so I can't check everyone.

Sentynel wrote:It's not broken, it just needs modification to address concerns it might break!

Excuses, excuses.

I think I won my debate today.

They give results later? Ah, bad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 090725.stm
Bad. I guess that doesn't even come close to your house, Gladstone? It has spread to quite a few areas, tough to work it out.

nathanielandbartimaeus wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/engl ... 090725.stm
Bad. I guess that doesn't even come close to your house, Gladstone? It has spread to quite a few areas, tough to work it out.

That article's from 2007.

OMG. That was some mistake. I heard some news some "massive fire" in the TV channels, so I googled it and I got that link first. I read the locations of the fire on the page and skipped the rest (proves how stupid it is to do such a thing) and I didn't even bother to check the date. I thought all the first news links were the latest ones. Anyway, here it is the correct one:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 671297.cms
This time, I checked the date and I read the whole article. And it is not really a massive (as in widespread) fire.

Massive is a slight exaggeration, and no I don't live in Central London. Plus I'm at Uni right now anyway.

So...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/CAN ... story.html

Yeah... this is what happens when we take on a relatively large role and the rest of NATO are d!cks by not supporting us, and the public wants Harper to pull us out when we need to stay committed to make sure our progress is not wasted.

Well, they shut down the LHC again, sigh.

Nero wrote:So...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/CAN ... story.html

Yeah... this is what happens when we take on a relatively large role and the rest of NATO are d!cks by not supporting us, and the public wants Harper to pull us out when we need to stay committed to make sure our progress is not wasted.

You know, I am starting to think the best way to solve the Afghanistan problem is to first solve the Pakistan problem. Pakistan, like everyone knows, is indispensable in solving the Afghanistan problem. The problem with Pakistan is, it nurtures some terrorists groups while launches a war on terror against the rest (well, initially it nurtured all including the Taliban). This won't work as the various terrorist groups are more or less linked and it becomes increasingly difficult to separate one from the other. Many of the Al-Qaeda leaders now live in Pakistan and there was even this case about the US accusing Pakistan's ISI of tipping of terrorists. BTW, that link even shows that the US believes the situation in Western Pakistan is causing instability in Afghanistan.
Now mind you, I am not accusing the Pakistan government of supporting terrorism, but its intelligence agency, the ISI, and the military. The two have more power than the Pak government has. And everyone knows that. Why on earth does Hillary Clinton, when on trips to Pakistan, spend 1 hour discussing issues with the Prime Minister and President and 3 hours with the army chief? And I sometimes doubt Pakistan's (meaning army and ISI's) commitment to even bringing peace in Afghanistan. India spends more than a billion dollars constructing schools, hospitals, roads etc. in Afghanistan and Pakistan goes and bombs the Indian embassy there, trying to force the Indians to leave the country.
Oh, and if you want to verify anything I said- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_a ... _terrorism. There are loads more links, but I thought that one summed everything well. (Oh, and a fun fact, the Pakistan media and, to an extent, the government believes that the US government carried out 9/11, the London government 7/7 and the Indian government 26/11. Because we all apparently want a reason to blame the Muslim world.)

Trust me, make Pakistan a true, democratic country with the government having the sole say, and Afghanistan suddenly won't seem such a problem.