DNA Dilema

I think it's about time for another post.! The topic this time, DNA Databases.

There has been allot of debate recently over whether it is right to keep innocent, or rather arrested but non convicted, people's DNA on a database. There is the argument that it is and could be a very useful tool in making catching criminals more quick and efficient. The police and our glorious government (insert sarcastic tone there) maintain that it has reduced crime (since they have started keeping a database), they claim that it will protect the innocent from being wrongfully convicted and that the scientific evidence supports this. I believe they are talking nonsense. The statistics released by the home office do indeed show a reduction in crime but it is a 0.3% reduction. Not enough. Innocent people have indeed been in the past wrongfully convicted and cleared by DNA evidence, however you don't need a database to do this, you just need to compare DNA from the crime scene and DNA of the suspect. Their final argument holds no water either, only recently they displayed that they only listen to what suits their agenda when it comes to their scientific ad visors with the case of their ex-drugs advisor Prof Nutt. These are the strongest arguments that the home secretory came up with in an article he wrote, all in all pretty weak.

The scientist in me however (or a little part of the scientist in me) sees this as an ok idea. A database of any information has its usefulness in creating efficiency. Also, DNA is so specific to individuals (bar that of identical twins- though even their DNA has some small differences in it) that it is surely the perfect way of identifying someone? Yet there have been a few cases (albeit according to hearsay/and tabloids) where a 'suspect' identified by his DNA couldn't possibly or plausibly be the suspect. So as long as we were to continue using it in conjunction with other evidence it would be a good method of identification. On the other hand nothing, not even science (shocking as it seems) is flawless. Errors occur with contamination at different stages of the process (at the crime scene- the lab etc), or even silly things like mixed up labels etc.

Although scientifically I think it's a good way of identifying a suspect doesn't mean it is morally acceptable. The human rights court ruled last year that retaining DNA of innocent people 'constituted a disproportionate interference with the individuals right to respect for a private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society'. The system they have of giving someones DNA profile a unique 20 digit code, for me, conjures up images of people being tattooed with numbered bar codes. Even if I was willing for them to know every tiny detail of my make up, I would never trust them with my data, if not because of worry of what they might do with it, then because of their record of loosing sensitive data which is abysmal. What if in 30 years time (and I'm going to go a bit sci-fi/paranoid on you now) there was a scientific advancement that allowed biological weapons to be DNA tagged. What if the government just lost another CD with sensitive data on it? What if this scientific advancement was made by some terrorist group? Or Perhaps another example- Who knows where the collection and usage would stop? Scientists (<3) could identify the gene that causes a violent personality, everyone with this gene now gets monitored in a prevention is better than freedom society.
Finally there is the argument that if you are innocent you won't get arrested. Yet evidence suggests, according to the human genetics commission, an increase of arrests to boost the DNA database was occurring. If we start collecting DNA of those arrested and not convicted what's to stop them turning around and saying, well we might as well get everybody's?I'm perhaps being a little over dramatic with my examples but I think in principle they stand. It would be a blatant invasion of privacy, we may as well have CCTV in every home.

The government should get rid of the databases they have, stop making up policies to suit themselves and listen to what the majority of people want. Spend the money on better police forces to find the criminals, who are more than likely not on the DNA database anyway!

Would imposing a minimum price on alcohol benefit society?

(Although I want your criticisms please don't be too harsh with my first post! I'm just need help being more expressive with my opinions! :D )
Britain has long been viewed as being irresponsible when it comes to drink. A view recognised not only by British people, but the world as a whole There is no doubt that it is a problem that needs to be tackled somehow, as it kills 30,000 people a year. One way of tackling this could be as the government is often suggesting is to make it harder to buy such large quantities of cheap alcohol. I partly agree that this would be a sensible option. It would mean less people would be able to become paralytic frequently which would therefore cut down on policing and NHS costs. There would also be less people dying from long term abuse as it has been proven that making alcohol more expensive slows the amount of long term users. However I think there are alot of issues with this option. To start it seems far too controlling. Although the government are there to reign in the extremes of the masses to benefit the majority of people, I think this is a step too close to the whole 'nanny state' thing. Another issue is that it would surely only help to widen the divide between the classes, leaving the poorer unable to afford to unwind with a social drink where as the richer could afford an increase in price and still binge drink without batting an eyelid. As someone who likes to go out and drink but who also knows when I've had enough (although sometimes admittedly I like to watch as I go past this point.) I am wondering why I should suffer the consequences of a few bad eggs? Why should I have to pay more to enjoy myself so that someone else can't afford to drink themselves into oblivion? So I conclude that although there is a real heath and a social issue that needs to be tackled when it comes to alcohol, I do not believe that making it less accessible for everybody is the answer. If someone really wants to drink loads, they are going to anyway - if health issues aren't strong enough to deter them, why would a higher price tag?

Hello!

Hi all! I have decided to start blogging again. I have abbandoned my livejournal. I cannot believe how angsty and apathetic I was all through Uni and only a year or so ago! FAIL. So I am starting afresh. The main reason is so that i can practice my writing/debating/ discussing stuff skills. This is so I can resit the GAMSAT and be third time lucky and pass the essay section. SO constructive critiscism, ideas on stuff to discuss, and any input what so ever will be greatly recieved from anyone!