1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics
  4. Volume 21, 2020
  5. Article

Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics

Volume 21, 2020

Pedigrees and Perpetrators: Uses of DNA and Genealogy in Forensic Investigations

Abstract

In the past few years, cases with DNA evidence that could not be solved with direct matches in DNA databases have benefited from comparing single-nucleotide polymorphism data with private and public genomic databases. Using a combination of genome comparisons and traditional genealogical research, investigators can triangulate distant relatives to the contributor of DNA data from a crime scene, ultimately identifying perpetrators of violent crimes. This approach has also been successful in identifying unknown deceased persons and perpetrators of lesser crimes. Such advances are bringing into focus ethical questions on how much access to DNA databases should be granted to law enforcement and how best to empower public genome contributors with control over their data. The necessary policies will take time to develop but can be informed by reflection on the familial searching policies developed for searches of the federal DNA database and considerations of the anonymity and privacy interests of civilians.

Keyword(s): forensic DNA, genetic genealogy, kinship associations
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213
2020-08-31
2024-04-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/genom/21/1/annurev-genom-111819-084213.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    23andMe 2019. 23andMe guide for law enforcement. 23andMe https://www.23andme.com/law-enforcement-guide
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    23andMe 2019. Transparency report. 23andMe Updated Oct. 15. https://www.23andme.com/transparency-report
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Abrahamson C. 2019. Guilt by genetic association: the Fourth Amendment and the search of private genetic databases by law enforcement. Fordham Law Rev 87:2539–88
     [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Agence Fr.-Presse (AFP) 2015. Kuwait makes DNA tests mandatory after ISIS bombing. Al Arabiya July 1. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/07/01/Kuwait-makes-DNA-tests-mandatory-after-ISIS-bombing-.html
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Aldhous P. 2019. The arrest of a teen on an assault charge has sparked new privacy fears about DNA sleuthing. BuzzFeed News May 14. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/genetic-genealogy-parabon-gedmatch-assault
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    Algee-Hewitt BF, Edge MD, Kim J, Li JZ, Rosenberg NA 2016. Individual identifiability predicts population identifiability in forensic microsatellite markers. Curr. Biol. 26:935–42
     [Google Scholar]
  7. 7. 
    Al-Hamoud J 2017. High court rules against controversial law on DNA—‘articles violate Constitution. .’ Arab Times Oct. 6. http://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/high-court-rules-controversial-law-dna-articles-violate-constitution
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Ancestry 2019. Ancestry 2018 transparency report. Ancestry https://www.ancestry.com/cs/transparency
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Ancestry 2019. Ancestry guide for law enforcement. Ancestry https://www.ancestry.com/cs/legal/lawenforcement
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Banbury Cent 2019. Emerging issues of privacy, trust, and societal benefit from consumer genomics Meet. Agenda, Banbury Cent., Cold Spring Harb. Lab Cold Spring Harbor, NY: https://www.cshl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Privacy-Trust-Societal-Benefit-from-Consumer-Genomics-Meeting-Agenda-Banbury.pdf
  11. 11. 
    Barca DC. 2014. Familial DNA testing, House Bill 3361, and the need for federal oversight. Hastings Law J 64:499–527
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Berkman BE, Miller WK, Grady C 2018. Is it ethical to use genealogy data to solve crimes?. Ann. Intern. Med. 169:333–34
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Bishop S. 2019. Police arrest Idaho man in 23-year-old cold-case murder of Angie Dodge. NBC News May 16. https://www.nbcnews.com/dateline/police-arrest-idaho-man-23-year-old-cold-case-murder-n1006726
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Board Certif. Geneal 2019. Genealogy Standards Washington, DC: Ancestry.com, 2nd ed..
  15. 15. 
    Bode Technol 2019. Bode Technology announces forensic genealogy service to law enforcement agencies and crime laboratories. PRWeb Dec. 9. https://www.prweb.com/releases/bode_technology_announces_forensic_genealogy_service_to_law_enforcement_agencies_and_crime_laboratories/prweb16091796.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 16. 
    Bornman DM, Hester ME, Schuetter JM, Kasoji MD, Minard-Smith A et al. 2012. Short-read, high-throughput sequencing technology for STR genotyping. BioTech. Rapid Dispatches 2012. Apr 1–6
     [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Brenner SE. 2013. Be prepared for the big genome leak. Nature 498:139
     [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Callaghan TF. 2019. Responsible genetic genealogy. Science 366:155
     [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    Callaway E. 2018. Supercharged crime-scene DNA analysis sparks privacy concerns. Nature 562:315–16
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 20. 
    Cassidy M. 2016. Genealogy leads to arrest in Canal Killer case. AZCentral Nov. 30. https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2016/11/30/how-forensic-genealogy-led-arrest-phoenix-canal-killer-case-bryan-patrick-miller-dna/94565410
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 21. 
    Chakraborty R, Stivers DN, Su B, Zhong Y, Budowle B 1999. The utility of short tandem repeat loci beyond human identification: implications for development of new DNA typing systems. Electrophoresis 20:1682–96
     [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Creighton CJ. 2018. Making use of cancer genomic databases. Curr. Protoc. Mol. Biol. 121:19 14 1–13
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    De Bortoli L, Nixon M 2017. Understanding the triggers for filicide will help prevent it. The Conversation Nov. 1. https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-triggers-for-filicide-will-help-prevent-it-86333
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Debus-Sherrill S, Field MB. 2019. Familial DNA searching – an emerging forensic investigative tool. Sci. Justice 59:20–28
     [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Dedrickson K. 2017. Universal DNA databases: a way to improve privacy. J. Law Biosci. 4:637–47
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 26. 
    Dolan M. 2010. Pizza slice helped link suspects to Grim Sleeper serial killings, sources say. Los Angeles Times July 7. https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/pizza-slice-helped-link-suspect-to-grim-sleeper-serial-killings.html
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Edge MD, Algee-Hewitt BFB, Pemberton TJ, Li JZ, Rosenberg NA 2017. Linkage disequilibrium matches forensic genetic records to disjoint genomic marker sets. PNAS 114:5671–76
     [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Eidelman V. 2018. Why the Golden State Killer investigation is cause for concern. American Civil Liberties Union May 11. https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacy-technology/medical-and-genetic-privacy/why-golden-state-killer-investigation-cause
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Erlich Y, Narayanan A. 2014. Routes for breaching and protecting genetic privacy. Nat. Rev. Genet. 15:409–21
     [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. 
    Erlich Y, Shor T, Pe'er I, Carmi S 2018. Identity inference of genomic data using long-range familial searches. Science 362:690–94
     [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. 
    Erlich Y, Williams JB, Glazer D, Yocum K, Farahany N et al. 2014. Redefining genomic privacy: trust and empowerment. PLOS Biol 12:e1001983
     [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    FamilyTreeDNA 2019. FamilyTreeDNA law enforcement guide. FamilyTreeDNA https://www.familytreedna.com/legal/law-enforcement-guide
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Field MB, Seera S, Nguyen C, Debus-Sherrill S 2017. Study of familial DNA searching policies and practices Doc. 251081, Case Study Brief Ser., Off. Just Programs, US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/study-familial-dna-searching-policies-and-practices-case-study-brief-series
  34. 34. 
    Future Priv. Forum Ed. 2019. Consumer genetic testing: a Q&A with Carson Martinez. Future of Privacy Forum Feb. 25. https://fpf.org/2019/02/25/consumer-genetic-testing-a-qa-with-carson-martinez
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. 
    Gershaw CJ, Schweighardt AJ, Rourke LC, Wallace MM 2011. Forensic utilization of familial searches in DNA databases. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 5:16–20
     [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Gill P, Ivanov PL, Kimpton C, Piercy R, Benson N et al. 1994. Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis. Nat. Genet. 6:130–35
     [Google Scholar]
  37. 37. 
    Gillispie M. 2018. Real name of mystery man who died in 2002 revealed. Star Tribune June 21
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Goetz T. 2007. 23andMe will decode your DNA for $1,000. Welcome to the age of genomics. Wired Nov. 17. https://www.wired.com/2007/11/ff-genomics
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Goldstein J. 2013. Police agencies are assembling records of DNA. New York Times June 12. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/13/us/police-agencies-are-assembling-records-of-dna.html
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Greytak EM, Kaye DH, Budowle B, Moore C, Armentrout SL 2018. Privacy and genetic genealogy data. Science 361:857
     [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Greytak EM, Moore C, Armentrout SL 2019. Genetic genealogy for cold case and active investigations. Forensic Sci. Int. 299:103–13
     [Google Scholar]
  42. 42. 
    Guerrini CJ, Robinson JO, Petersen D, McGuire AL 2018. Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique. PLOS Biol 16:e2006906
     [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y 2013. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339:321–24
     [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Gymrek M, Willems T, Reich D, Erlich Y 2017. Interpreting short tandem repeat variations in humans using mutational constraint. Nat. Genet. 49:1495–501
     [Google Scholar]
  45. 45. 
    Hazel JW, Clayton EW, Malin BA, Slobogin C 2018. Is it time for a universal genetic forensic database?. Science 362:898–900
     [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Hazel JW, Clayton EW, Malin BA, Slobogin C 2019. Risks of compulsory genetic databases—response. Science 363:940
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    He D, Furlotte NA, Hormozdiari F, Joo JW, Wadia A et al. 2014. Identifying genetic relatives without compromising privacy. Genome Res 24:664–72
     [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Henn BM, Hon L, Macpherson JM, Eriksson N, Saxonov S et al. 2012. Cryptic distant relatives are common in both isolated and cosmopolitan genetic samples. PLOS ONE 7:e34267
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Hibbs K. 2019. Our stance on protecting customers data. 23andMe Nov. 7. https://blog.23andme.com/news/our-stance-on-protecting-customers-data
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Hill K, Murphy H. 2019. Your DNA profile is private? A Florida judge just said otherwise. New York Times Nov. 5. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/business/dna-database-search-warrant.html
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Homer N, Szelinger S, Redman M, Duggan D, Tembe W et al. 2008. Resolving individuals contributing trace amounts of DNA to highly complex mixtures using high-density SNP genotyping microarrays. PLOS Genet 4:e1000167
     [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Huff CD, Witherspoon DJ, Simonson TS, Xing J, Watkins WS et al. 2011. Maximum-likelihood estimation of recent shared ancestry (ERSA). Genome Res 21:768–74
     [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Ivanov PL, Wadhams MJ, Roby RK, Holland MM, Weedn VW, Parsons TJ 1996. Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas II. Nat. Genet. 12:417–20
     [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Jacobs KB, Yeager M, Wacholder S, Craig D, Kraft P et al. 2009. A new statistic and its power to infer membership in a genome-wide association study using genotype frequencies. Nat. Genet. 41:1253–57
     [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Joh E. 2010. A “familial” net: We mustn't ignore the perils of genetic data mining. Los Angeles Times July 10 A27
     [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Joly Y, Marrocco G, Dupras C 2019. Risks of compulsory genetic databases. Science 363:938–40
     [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Kaiser J. 2019. A judge said police can search the DNA of 1 million Americans without their consent. What's next?. Science Nov. 7. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/11/judge-said-police-can-search-dna-millions-americans-without-their-consent-what-s-next
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Karantzali E, Rosmaraki P, Kotsakis A, Le Roux-Le Pajolec MG, Fitsialos G 2019. The effect of FBI CODIS core STR loci expansion on familial DNA database searching. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 43:102129
     [Google Scholar]
  59. 59. 
    Katsanis SH, Kim J. 2016. Privacy challenges with genetic information. Handbook of Missing Persons SJ Morewitz, C Sturdy Colls 379–87 Cham, Switz: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Katsanis SH, Snyder L, Arnholt K, Mundorff AZ 2018. Consent process for US-based family reference DNA samples. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 32:71–79
     [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Katsanis SH, Wagner JK. 2013. Characterization of the standard and recommended CODIS markers. J. Forensic Sci. 58:Suppl. 1S169–72
     [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Kaye DH, Smith ME. 2003. DNA identification databases: legality, legitimacy, and the case for population-wide coverage. Wisc. Law Rev. 413:413–59
     [Google Scholar]
  63. 63. 
    Kennett D. 2019. Using genetic genealogy databases in missing persons cases and to develop suspect leads in violent crimes. Forensic Sci. Int. 301:107–17
     [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Kim J, Edge MD, Algee-Hewitt BFB, Li JZ, Rosenberg NA 2018. Statistical detection of relatives typed with disjoint forensic and biomedical loci. Cell 175:848–58.e6
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Kim J, Mammo D, Siegel MB, Katsanis SH 2011. Policy implications for familial searching. Investig. Genet. 2:22
     [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    King TE, Ballereau SJ, Schurer KE, Jobling MA 2006. Genetic signatures of coancestry within surnames. Curr. Biol. 16:384–88
     [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    King TE, Fortes GG, Balaresque P, Thomas MG, Balding D et al. 2014. Identification of the remains of King Richard III. Nat. Commun. 5:5631
     [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    King TE, Jobling MA. 2009. What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution. Trends Genet 25:351–60
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Kolata G, Murphy H. 2018. The Golden State Killer is tracked through a thicket of DNA, and experts shudder. New York Times Apr. 27. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/27/health/dna-privacy-golden-state-killer-genealogy.html
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Krimsky S, Simoncelli T. 2010. Genetic Justice: DNA Data Banks, Criminal Investigations, and Civil Liberties New York: Columbia Univ. Press
  71. 71. 
    Langreth R. 2008. States crack down on online gene tests. Forbes Apr. 18. https://www.forbes.com/2008/04/17/genes-regulation-testing-biz-cx_mh_bl_0418genes.html
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    Larkin L. 2019. DNA tests. DNA Geek updated Nov. 27. https://thednageek.com/dna-tests
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    Larmuseau MH, Van Geystelen A, van Oven M, Decorte R 2013. Genetic genealogy comes of age: perspectives on the use of deep-rooted pedigrees in human population genetics. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 150:505–11
     [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    Lathe WC III, Williams JM, Mangan ME, Karolchik D 2008. Genomic data resources: challenges and promises. Nat. Educ. 1:32
     [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Lowrance WW, Collins FS. 2007. Identifiability in genomic research. Science 317:600–2
     [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Mailman MD, Feolo M, Jin Y, Kimura M, Tryka K et al. 2007. The NCBI dbGaP database of genotypes and phenotypes. Nat. Genet. 39:1181–86
     [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Manichaikul A, Mychaleckyj JC, Rich SS, Daly K, Sale M, Chen WM 2010. Robust relationship inference in genome-wide association studies. Bioinformatics 26:2867–73
     [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Martinez C. 2018. Privacy best practices for consumer genetic testing services. Future of Privacy Forum July 31. https://fpf.org/2018/07/31/privacy-best-practices-for-consumer-genetic-testing-services
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    May T. 2018. Sociogenetic risks—ancestry DNA testing, third-party identity, and protection of privacy. N. Engl. J. Med. 379:410–12
     [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    Molteni M. 2018. The creepy genetics behind the Golden State Killer case. Wired Apr. 27. https://www.wired.com/story/detectives-cracked-the-golden-state-killer-case-using-genetics
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Molteni M. 2019. DNA crime-solving is still new, yet it may have gone too far. Wired Mar. 14. https://www.wired.com/story/dna-crime-solving-is-still-new-yet-it-may-have-gone-too-far
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Molteni M. 2019. A DNA firm that caters to police just bought a genealogy site. Wired Dec. 9. https://www.wired.com/story/a-dna-firm-that-caters-to-police-just-bought-a-genealogy-site
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Moore C. 2016. The history of genetic genealogy and unknown parentage research: an insider's view. J. Genet. Geneal. 8:35–37
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Moran KS. 2018. Damned by DNA—balancing personal privacy with public safety. Forensic Sci. Int. 292:e3–4
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Murphy E. 2010. Relative doubt: familial searches of DNA databases. Mich. Law Rev. 109:291–348
     [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Murphy E. 2018. Law and policy oversight of familial searches in recreational genealogy databases. Forensic Sci. Int. 292:e5–9
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Murphy E, Tong J. 2020. The racial composition of forensic DNA databases. Calif. Law Rev. 108: Forthcoming. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3477974
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Nakashima E. 2008. From DNA of a family, a tool to make arrests. Washington Post Apr. 21. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/20/AR2008042002388.html
    [Google Scholar]
  89. 89. 
    Napolitano J. 2010. Letter to the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, March 22. Electronic Frontier Foundation https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/ice_dna_3-22-10_napolitanoletter.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Natl. Inst. Health 2014. NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy Not. NOT-OD-14-124, Natl. Inst. Health Bethesda, MD: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-14-124.html
  91. 91. 
    Natl. Inst. Health 2019. dbGaP approved user code of conduct. National Institutes of Health https://dbgap.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/aa/Code_of_Conduct.html
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Natl. Res. Council 1992. DNA Technology in Forensic Science Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  93. 93. 
    Natl. Res. Council 1996. The Evaluation of Forensic DNA Evidence Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  94. 94. 
    Natl. Res. Council 2009. Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  95. 95. 
    Nelson SC, Fullerton SM. 2018. “Bridge to the literature”? Third-party genetic interpretation tools and the views of tool developers. J. Genet. Couns. 27:770–81
     [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Parabon NanoLabs 2018. Parabon® announces Snapshot® Genetic Genealogy Service for law enforcement. PR Newswire May 8. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/parabon-announces-snapshot-genetic-genealogy-service-for-law-enforcement-300644394.html
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Phillips C. 2018. The Golden State Killer investigation and the nascent field of forensic genealogy. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 36:186–88
     [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Pike ER. 2016. Securing sequences: ensuring adequate protections for genetic samples in the age of big data. Cardozo Law Rev 37:1977–2033
     [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Ram N. 2011. Fortuity and forensic familial identification. Stanford Law Rev 63:751–812
     [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Ram N. 2019. The genealogy site that helped catch the Golden State Killer is grappling with privacy. Slate May 29. https://slate.com/technology/2019/05/gedmatch-dna-privacy-update-law-enforcement-genetic-geneology-searches.html
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Ram N, Guerrini CJ, McGuire AL 2018. Genealogy databases and the future of criminal investigation. Science 360:1078–79
     [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Regalado A. 2018. 2017 was the year consumer DNA testing blew up. MIT Technology Review Feb. 12. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/610233/2017-was-the-year-consumer-dna-testing-blew-up
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Rodriguez LL, Brooks LD, Greenberg JH, Green ED 2013. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 339:275–76
     [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Saplakoglu Y. 2018. How the Golden State Killer's DNA nabbed him. Live Science Apr. 27. https://www.livescience.com/62421-golden-state-killer-dna-genealogy.html
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Schuppe J. 2019. Police were cracking cold cases with a DNA website. Then the fine print changed. NBC News Oct. 23. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-were-cracking-cold-cases-dna-website-then-fine-print-n1070901
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Sci. Work. Group DNA Anal. Methods Ad Hoc Comm. Partial Matches 2009. SWGDAM recommendations to the FBI Director on the “Interim Plan for the Release of Information in the Event of a ‘Partial Match’ at NDIS. .” Forensic Sci. Commun 11:4 https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/oct2009/standard_guidlines/swgdam.html
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Sci. Work. Group DNA Anal. Methods Ad Hoc Work. Group Fam Search 2013. Recommendations from the SWGDAM Ad Hoc Working Group on Familial Searching Recomm. Doc., US Fed. Bureau Investig Washington, DC: http://media.wix.com/ugd/4344b0_46b5263cab994f16aeedb01419f964f6.pdf
  108. 108. 
    Simoncelli T. 2006. Dangerous excursions: the case against expanding forensic DNA databases to innocent persons. J. Law Med. Ethics 34:390–97
     [Google Scholar]
  109. 109. 
    Simoncelli T, Krimsky S. 2007. A new era of DNA collections: at what cost to civil liberties? Rep., Am. Const. Soc Washington, DC:
  110. 110. 
    Spradley MK. 2014. Toward estimating geographic origin of migrant remains along the United States–Mexico border. Ann. Anthropol. Pract. 38:101–10
     [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Stanton S. 2018. Relative's DNA from genealogy websites cracked East Area Rapist case, DA's office says. Sacramento Bee Apr. 26. https://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article209913514.html
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Starr D. 2016. When DNA is lying. Science 351:1133–36
     [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Suter S. 2009. All in the family: privacy and DNA familial searching. Harv. J. Law Technol. 23:309–99
     [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Syndercombe Court D. 2018. Forensic genealogy: some serious concerns. Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 36:203–4
     [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Tashea J. 2019. Genealogy sites give law enforcement a new DNA sleuthing tool, but the battle over privacy looms. ABA Journal Nov. 1. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/family-tree-genealogy-sites-arm-law-enforcement-with-a-new-branch-of-dna-sleuthing-but-the-battle-over-privacy-looms
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Taylor M. 2019. Bill would abolish NYC DNA database. 2019. Forensic Magazine Nov. 25. https://www.forensicmag.com/558143-Bill-Would-Abolish-NYC-DNA-Database/
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    US Dep. Homel. Secur 2020. Privacy impact assessment for the CBP and ICE DNA collection Policy Doc. DHS/ALL/PIA-080, US Dep. Homel. Secur Washington, DC: https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsallpia-080-cbp-and-ice-dna-collection
  118. 118. 
    US Dep. Justice 2019. Interim policy: forensic genetic genealogical DNA analysis and searching Policy Doc., US Dep. Justice Washington, DC: https://www.justice.gov/olp/page/file/1204386/download
  119. 119. 
    US Fed. Bur. Investig 2019. CODIS - NDIS statistics. US Federal Bureau of Investigation https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/ndis-statistics
    [Google Scholar]
  120. 120. 
    Vaughan A. 2019. DNA database opts a million people out from police searches. New Scientist May 20. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2203857-dna-database-opts-a-million-people-out-from-police-searches
    [Google Scholar]
  121. 121. 
    von Thenen N, Ayday E, Cicek AE 2019. Re-identification of individuals in genomic data-sharing beacons via allele inference. Bioinformatics 35:365–71
     [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Wagner JK, Cooper JD, Sterling R, Royal CD 2012. Tilting at windmills no longer: a data-driven discussion of DTC DNA ancestry tests. Genet. Med. 14:586–93
     [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Williamson R, Duncan R. 2002. DNA testing for all. Nature 418:585–86
     [Google Scholar]
  124. 124. 
    Zerhouni EA, Nabel EG. 2008. Protecting aggregate genomic data. Science 322:44
     [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Zhang S. 2019. An abandoned baby's DNA condemns his mother. Atlantic Mar. 13. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/38-years-later-dna-leads-to-teenager-who-abandoned-her-baby-in-a-ditch/584683
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Zhu Y, Zhang Y, Ojwang BA, Brantley MA Jr, Gidday JM 2007. Long-term tolerance to retinal ischemia by repetitive hypoxic preconditioning: role of HIF-1α and heme oxygenase-1. Investig. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 48:1735–43
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213
Loading
Pedigrees and Perpetrators: Uses of DNA and Genealogy in Forensic Investigations
Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 21, 535 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-genom-111819-084213
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error