Acceptability of DNA Paternity Exclusion Testing

Carrying out DNA paternity exclusion testing using hair or saliva sampled without permission has a number of arguments for and against the acceptability of this behaviour. Each circumstance for conducting the testing carries with it a range of counterarguments, making it difficult to give an overall evaluation as to whether this practice is acceptable or not.

Heredity is the “transmission of genetic characteristics from parents to offspring” (Heffernan & Miller 1997). Genes are the “unit of inheritance” (‘Gene’ 2001) which determine an individual’s inheritance of certain characteristics from their parents. Genes are found in the chromosomes of a cell, and the particular place that each gene occupies on the chromosome is called a locus. Each gene is made up of a particular sequence of organic bases that code for the production of a polypeptide, which become proteins and control cell activities, thus determining characteristics of an individual. Genetic variation is inherited and is a result of the mixing of genes during meiosis and fertilisation (Heffernan & Miller 1997). Polymorphism refers to genes having more than one form, or allele; therefore a gene that has more than one allele is described as being polymorphic (‘Scientific Explanation of DNA Parentage Testing’ 1999).

DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is a long molecule that carries the genetic information in cells. DNA is found mostly in the nucleus of a cell and contains a “chemical sequence of organic bases that specify the genetic code” (Heffernan & Miller 1997). These bases are adenine, guanine, thymine and cytosine. With the exception of identical twins, it is highly unlikely that any two individuals have exactly the same DNA. The DNA can be isolated from cells provided in hair or saliva samples, and subsequent analysis of the DNA can give information showing genetic links between two individuals. This is due to a person inheriting half of their chromosomes from their mother and half from their father (‘How is DNA used in Paternity Testing?’ 2002). However, the DNA can only be extracted from cells in the hair follicle (‘Services’ 2002). This means that hair found on a brush or on a pillow cannot be used in the testing.

PRC (polymerase chain reaction) is a technique used in DNA paternity testing. It rapidly produces “billions of copies of a length of DNA” (Heffernan & Miller 1997) and allows a single gene to be “amplified by a factor of millions” (Larkin 1994), which can then be detected or isolated from unwanted genes. Polymerase is the enzyme involved in replicating the strands of DNA; at a polymorphic locus on a chromosome, two ‘molecular tags’ are attached and the polymerase is then used to replicate this DNA fragment (‘Scientific Explanation…’ 1999). Using electrophoresis, the DNA fragments can be ‘revealed’ in a certain pattern, and this pattern can be compared between individuals and thus determine paternity (‘Scientific Explanation…’ 1999). The genetic component that the child has inherited from their biological mother can be seen in the pattern, and the remaining ‘fragment’ can be compared with the alleged father and may exclude them from paternity. If a man is not excluded as the father, then there is a probability of over 99.9% that he is in fact the father (‘How Efficient is the Testing?’ 2003). Therefore, DNA testing can either exclude an alleged father from paternity with “absolute certainty” (‘Scientific Explanation…’ 1999), or determine that the man is in fact the father due to “a level of inclusionary probability that is regarded as well beyond reasonable doubt” (‘Scientific Explanation…’ 1999).

At the moment, there are no laws in place that prevent hair or saliva samples being taken without permission and used to carry out DNA paternity exclusion tests. The ethical consideration of an individual’s right to privacy is paramount in an issue such as this. Taking someone’s DNA without permission can be classified as stealing and is thus illegal and unacceptable.

The ethical issue of possible exploitation of an individual’s DNA is also a problem that could occur from samples taken without permission. The DNA may be used for purposes other than excluding the individual as the father of a child; their DNA could be used to find out any genetic diseases that they will develop, and this information could be used against them by, for example, insurers or employers. However, the DNA taken without permission could also be used to eliminate individuals as suspects from crimes, thus advantaging society.

DNA paternity exclusion testing can have a negative influence on families and therefore has social implications. Use of this testing with samples taken without permission can break up families and have a negative influence on children, who may have previously believed another man to be their biological father. Taking someone’s saliva or hair as a sample for a DNA paternity exclusion test without his or her permission is a considerable betrayal of trust. This in itself could also break up families if one family member took another family member’s sample without permission, even if the test did not end up excluding an individual as the father. Although very small, there is still a chance that more than one person has identical DNA, or that human error has caused an inaccurate result (Aubusson & Kennedy 2000).

Using an individual’s DNA for paternity exclusion testing without their permission may have serious implications for the individual based on their religious beliefs. If their beliefs are against any kind of DNA testing altogether, then they may suffer emotional stress when they find out what has occurred.

A social issue involved is that carrying out DNA paternity exclusion testing using a sample taken without permission can exclude or include an individual as the father of a child. If the child knows the identity of their biological father, they may gain a sense of ‘identity’; for most people, it is important to know who their father is and what sort of person they are. This may set their mind at ease and answer questions about themselves, such as what characteristics they have inherited from their father. It can be argued that a fundamental right of a child is to know who both their parents are, however, although this knowledge may benefit the child, it is not necessarily beneficial to the other parties involved.

A social and economic issue to do with paternity exclusion testing revolves around the payment of child support. In most cases, it is the biological father who has to pay child support, even if he plays no part in the child’s life. If a man refuses to give DNA for a paternity exclusion test, he may be doing so to avoid being identified as the father and thus avoid paying child support. In this case, it is in the interests of the mother (if she is the one caring for the child) and of the child that the paternity exclusion test goes ahead. This might only be able to happen with the use of DNA sampled without permission and may be deemed as acceptable.

Social and economic advantages of DNA paternity exclusion testing may result due to a child finding out who their father is by including or excluding an individual using DNA sampled without their permission. The child then has the opportunity to investigate any genetic diseases or any high risk of developing a disease that they might have inherited from their father. Therefore, the child could find out about any diseases that are prevalent on their father’s side of the family, and could determine certain diseases that they have a predisposition for, such as cystic fibrosis or Parkinson’s disease. For example, Huntington’s disease, which does not usually develop in individuals until middle age (Peters 1993) can be detected in an individual by using their DNA before they have actually developed the disease. Knowledge of having an increased risk of developing a disease means that preventative measures or management of the problem could occur before the individual actually develops the disease. This may decrease the individual’s reliance on the health care system, thus benefiting society, the individual, and the economy. However, finding out this kind of information might be detrimental to the individual’s emotional state if they realise that the disease could affect their quality of life or decrease their life expectancy.

The issue of paternity exclusion testing has the potential to become a political concern. With the possibility of regulatory guidelines or laws being developed, politicians could use popular public opinion to their advantage and draw voters. If laws are put in place that prevent DNA sampled without permission from being used in paternity exclusion testing, then organisations or companies who do this type of testing will be economically disadvantaged because the number of tests being done could decrease dramatically.

If laws are implemented, cases may be taken to court in an attempt to get an order forcing an individual to give a DNA sample for paternity exclusion testing. This could place great financial strain on the individual who is taken to court and also disrupt the court system, thus being a social issue. If organisations such as Beta Paternity DNA Laboratory (‘Services’ 2002) continue to carry out paternity exclusion tests using DNA sampled without permission, they may face subsequent legal action from the individual involved.

Like any complex issue such as this, any legal decisions or the implementation of new laws will not suit everyone and many people will disagree with the decisions. However, laws do need to be put in place that prevent an individual or organisation from carrying out paternity exclusion testing using DNA sampled without permission. The Human Genetics Commission has recommended that obtaining an individual’s DNA without permission should be treated as theft (Allardice 2002).

It is difficult to state outright whether or not carrying out DNA paternity exclusion testing using hair or saliva sampled without permission is acceptable. There are many legal, social, economic and ethical considerations that contribute towards both sides of the debate. However, the disadvantages of this issue outweigh the advantages, and therefore this practise is unacceptable. An individual’s right to privacy and protection of their DNA outweighs a child’s need to determine their paternity. Laws need to be made that prevent individuals or organisations from taking hair or saliva samples without permission to use in paternity exclusion testing.

References

Allardice, Lisa (2002) ‘Who’s Your Daddy? These Days, Men are Pulling Their Hair Out to Discover the Truth’, New Statesman, 131, p8.

Aubusson, P & Kennedy, E (2000) Biology in Context: The Spectrum of Life, Oxford University Press, Australia.

Beta Paternity Testing Laboratory. (2002) ‘Services’ http://www.paternity-dna-test.com/ (20 May 2003).

Gene, Microsoft Encarta (CD ROM) 2001. Microsoft Corporation.

Genetic Technologies Corporation Pty Ltd. (1999) ‘Scientific Explanation of DNA Parentage Testing’ http://www.genetictechnologies.com.au/whatisdna2.htm (17 May 2003).

Heffernan, D & Miller, R (1997) The Australian Biology Dictionary, Pearson Education Australia Pty Limited, South Melbourne.

Peters, Pamela (1993) Biotechnology: A Guide to Genetic Engineering, p85, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, USA.

Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine. (2003) ‘How Efficient is the Testing?’ http://www.vifp.monash.edu.au/dnatesting/ethical.htm (17 May 2003).