Prioritizing privacy and presentation of supportable hypothesis testing in forensic genetic genealogy investigations

Investigative leads are not generated by traditional forensic DNA testing, if the source of the forensic evidence or a 1st degree relative of unidentified human remains is not in the DNA database. In such cases, forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) can provide valuable leads. However, FGG generated genetic data contain private and sensitive information. Therefore, it is essential to deploy approaches that minimize unnecessary disclosure of these data to mitigate potential risks to individual privacy. We recommend protective practices that need not impact effective reporting of relationship identifications. Examples include performing one-to-one comparisons of DNA profiles of third-party samples and evidence samples offline with an "air gap" to the internet and shielding the specific shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) states and locations by binning adjacent SNPs in forensic reports. Such approaches reduce risk of unwanted access to or reverse engineering of third-party individuals' genetic data and can give these donors greater confidence to support use of their DNA profiles in FGG investigation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BioTechniques
Published
2024-08-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/07366205.2024.2386218
Citations
5
Primary Topic
Forensic and Genetic Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.75
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Prioritizing privacy and presentation of supportable hypothesis testing in forensic genetic genealogy investigations

Bruce Budowle, Antti Sajantila, David Mittelman, Lee D. Baker et al.
5 citations
BioTechniques
Forensic and Genetic Research
2.75
article

Prioritizing privacy and presentation of supportable hypothesis testing in forensic genetic genealogy investigations

Bruce Budowle, Antti Sajantila, David Mittelman, Lee D. Baker, Kristen Mittelman
article en
5 citations

Abstract

Investigative leads are not generated by traditional forensic DNA testing, if the source of the forensic evidence or a 1st degree relative of unidentified human remains is not in the DNA database. In such cases, forensic genetic genealogy (FGG) can provide valuable leads. However, FGG generated genetic data contain private and sensitive information. Therefore, it is essential to deploy approaches that minimize unnecessary disclosure of these data to mitigate potential risks to individual privacy. We recommend protective practices that need not impact effective reporting of relationship identifications. Examples include performing one-to-one comparisons of DNA profiles of third-party samples and evidence samples offline with an "air gap" to the internet and shielding the specific shared single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) states and locations by binning adjacent SNPs in forensic reports. Such approaches reduce risk of unwanted access to or reverse engineering of third-party individuals' genetic data and can give these donors greater confidence to support use of their DNA profiles in FGG investigation.

BioTechniquesVol. 76(9)
University of Helsinki (FI), Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (FI), Radford University (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Forensic and Genetic Research
2.75
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.