Law Enforcement
Use of Probabilistic
Genotyping, Forensic
DNA Phenotyping, and
Forensic Investigative
Genetic Genealogy
Technologies
______
Erin Hammers Forstag, Rapporteur
Committee on Law and Justice
Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board
Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education
Division on Engineering and
Physical Sciences
Proceedings of a Workshop
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by a contract between the National Academy of Sciences and the National Institute of Justice (15PNIJ-23-GG-04263-NIJB). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-72364-0
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-72364-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/27887
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2024 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2024. Law Enforcement Use of Probabilistic Genotyping, Forensic DNA Phenotyping, and Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy Technologies: Proceedings of a Workshop. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/27887.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
WORKSHOP PLANNING COMMITTEE ON LAW ENFORCEMENT USE OF PROBABILISTIC GENOTYPING, FORENSIC DNA PHENOTYPING, AND FORENSIC INVESTIGATIVE GENETIC GENEALOGY TECHNOLOGIES
ALICIA CARRIQUIRY (Chair), Professor of Statistics, Iowa State University
SARAH CHU, Director of Policy and Reforms, Perlmutter Center for Legal Justice at Cardozo Law
MICHAEL COBLE, Associate Professor and Executive Director, Center for Human Identification at the University of North Texas Health Science Center
HEATHER McKIERNAN, Forensic Services Program Manager for the National Missing and Unidentified Persons System, RTI International
CRAIG O’CONNOR, Deputy Director, Forensic Biology Department of the New York City Office of Chief Medical Examiner
NATALIE RAM, Professor of Law, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law; Adjunct Faculty, Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University
Staff
AMANDA GRIGG, Senior Program Officer
ABIGAIL ALLEN, Associate Program Officer
STACEY SMIT, Program Coordinator
EMILY P. BACKES, Deputy Board Director
This page intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgments
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ) wishes to express its sincere gratitude to the planning committee chair, Alicia Carriquiry, for her valuable contributions to the development and orchestration of this workshop. CLAJ also wishes to thank all the members of the planning committee, who collaborated to ensure the workshop included an abundance of informative presentations and moderated discussions. CLAJ would also like to recognize the critical support of our workshop sponsor, the National Institute of Justice, without which we could not have undertaken this project. It is due to that organization’s dedication to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice issues through science that we were able to facilitate this timely event.
This page intentionally left blank.
Reviewers
This Proceedings of a Workshop was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) in making each published proceedings as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this proceedings:
JOHN M. BUTLER, National Institute of Standards and Technology
DAPHNE OLUWASEUN MARTSCHENKO, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics
We also thank staff member STEPHEN F. MAHER for reading and providing helpful comments on this manuscript.
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the content of the proceedings nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this proceedings was overseen by ALEX PIQUERO, University of Miami. He was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this proceedings was carried out in accordance with standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the rapporteur and the National Academies.
This page intentionally left blank.
Contents
1 Public Trust and the Landscape of Law Enforcement Use of Advanced Forensic DNA Technologies
ORGANIZATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS
SETTING THE STAGE: ETHICS, EQUITY, AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Expanded Impact of Advanced Forensic DNA Technologies Context and Framing
Law Enforcement Use of Proprietary Technologies
Ethical and Socially Responsible Implementation
Technology’s Role in Investigative Work
2 Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy
OVERVIEW OF FORENSIC INVESTIGATIVE GENETIC GENEALOGY (FIGG)
Distinct Characteristics of FIGG
CONSIDERATIONS FOR USE OF FIGG BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Considerations for Implementation
CONSIDERATIONS FOR PG USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
Considerations for Implementation
OVERVIEW OF FORENSIC DNA PHENOTYPING (FDP)
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FDP USE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT
Challenges and Ethical Considerations
CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
Frameworks for Governance and Oversight
BEST PRACTICES AMID A REGULATORY VACUUM IN AUSTRALIA
TENTATIVE USE OF FIGG IN EUROPE
A LACK OF CLARITY IN ENGLAND AND WALES
MULTIPLE LEVELS OF REGULATION IN SWITZERLAND
This page intentionally left blank.
Boxes, Figures, and Table
BOXES
1-3 Brief Technology Definitions
2-1 Overview of Forensic Investigative Genetic Genealogy
2-2 Opportunities and Challenges in Using FIGG Identified by Workshop Speakers
2-3 Guidelines for Establishing FIGG Programs
2-4 Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure § 17-102
3-1 Overview of Probabilistic Genotyping and Related Software
3-2 SWGDAM Guidelines for Validating Probabilistic Genotyping Systems
3-3 Opportunities and Challenges in Using PG Identified by Workshop Speakers
3-4 IEEE Standard 1012 for System, Software, and Hardware Verification and Validation
4-1 Overview of Forensic DNA Phenotyping
4-2 Opportunities and Challenges in Using FDP Identified by Workshop Speakers
5-1 Best Practices for Privacy Impact Assessments
5-2 Australian Regulations on FIGG
FIGURES
2-1 U.S. general population survey of support for forensic investigative genetic genealogy: 2018
2-2 Nine priority issues for FIGG as identified by policy Delphi
3-1 Implementation of probabilistic genotyping, 2014–2023
4-1 Examples of forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP) prediction result using current scientific knowledge
5-1 Sequential unmasking of information before using forensic investigative genetic genealogy (FIGG)
TABLE
2-1 Differences Between Traditional Forensic DNA Analysis and Genetic Genealogy
Acronyms and Abbreviations
| AUC | area under the curve |
| BGA | inference of biographical ancestry |
| CODIS | Combined DNA Index System |
| DNA | deoxyribonucleic acid |
| DOJ | U.S. Department of Justice |
| ELSI | ethical, legal, and social implications |
| FDP | forensic DNA phenotyping |
| FIGG | forensic investigative genetic genealogy |
| GDPR | General Data Protection Regulation |
| I-FAMILIA | INTERPOL Family Associated Matching to Identify Lost Individuals Abroad |
| IEEE | Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers |
| INTERPOL | International Criminal Police Organization |
| NCIDD | National Criminal Identification DNA Database |
| NIJ | National Institute of Justice |
| NTVIC | National Technology Validation and Implementation Collaborative |
| PG | probabilistic genotyping |
| SNP | single nucleotide polymorphism |
| STR | short tandem repeat |
| SWGDAM | Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods |
| Y-STR | Y-chromosome short tandem repeat |
