scary Original Article Posted 6/7/2005 11:17 PM Suspects get snared by a relative's DNA By Richard Willing, USA TODAY Lab technicians in North Carolina didn't have Willard Brown's DNA on file, but they had his brother's. And these days, that can be good enough to solve a murder. Darryl Hunt, who served 18 years in prison before he was exonerated thanks to DNA evidence, speaks before a House committee in Raleigh, N.C. Karen Tam, AP Searching for the man who raped and killed a Winston-Salem newspaper editor, the technicians in 2003 compared DNA left at the crime scene with the genetic profiles in the state's database of convicted felons. The crime scene DNA didn't match any of the 40,000 felons on file, but it did offer a clue: The unknown man's profile was remarkably similar to that of one convict, Anthony Dennard Brown. The technicians concluded that Brown and the man they were seeking probably had inherited their DNA a cellular acid that carries a person's unique genetic code from the same parents. (Graphic: How DNA fragments are matched) Detectives took it from there. They found Brown's brother, Willard, scooped up the butts of cigarettes he had smoked and discarded, and got a sample of his DNA from the saliva. It matched the sample from the crime scene perfectly. Last December, Willard Brown pleaded guilty to raping and killing Deborah Sykes in 1984 and was sentenced to life in prison plus 10 years. The DNA testing exonerated Darryl Hunt, who had spent 18 years in prison for the crime and had persuaded a court to order the testing. It sounds like a script from the CSI crime dramas. But the Brown case reflects real-life advances in crime-solving: DNA science, known for its ability to pinpoint suspects' identities with virtual certainty, now is being used to help investigators simply get close to their targets. Investigators in the USA and the United Kingdom have begun to solve not just crimes committed by convicts whose DNA profiles are in government databases, but also those committed by relatives such as Willard Brown, whose profiles were not on file. Siblings, parents, and even uncles and cousins increasingly are being investigated for crimes because their genetic fingerprints closely resemble the DNA of a known criminal. Such "familial searches" could greatly expand the power of the computer databases that authorities in both nations have used for the past decade to compare genetic profiles taken from convicted criminals with DNA left at crime scenes. At the end of April, the 50 states and the federal government had collected DNA profiles from more than 2.4 million people and had solved more than 16,000 cases. Using those DNA profiles to track close relatives of those listed in the databases could effectively double or triple the size of the databases without adding new samples. But the new techniques raise a range of ethical and legal questions: Is it fair, for example, for someone who has committed no crime to become a "virtual" suspect because a relative's DNA is on file? And how can familial searches of DNA databases avoid violating the privacy of unrelated people whose genetic profiles happen to resemble that of someone in the databases? Because all human DNA shares some similarities, thousands of unrelated people can have DNA profiles that partially match. David Lazer, a professor of public policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, says the use of familial DNA searches in criminal investigations raises the possibility that "if you're in the genetic neighborhood of someone they're looking for, the police will be banging on your door." The United Kingdom is moving aggressively to increase the use of familial searches, but such testing is relatively rare in the USA, in part because of concern about the potential impact on individual privacy rights. Most state database laws neither ban nor endorse the practice. Lazer says some government labs are waiting for legislatures or courts to approve using DNA to track criminals' relatives before going forward. The Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods, a group of 35 specialists who advise the federal government on DNA policy, began discussing the emerging legal and ethical questions last year. The group is likely to revisit the issue when the group meets this month at the FBI lab at Quantico, Va. "This is a real-time story. (It's) something that we're trying to get right, right now," says Angelo Della Manna, forensic biology chief at Alabama's state crime lab and a member of the scientists' group that performed DNA tests in the Brown case. "Everybody wants to make use of the (DNA) databases' incredible power. The question we're all asking ourselves is: How do you strike the balance?" Technology and biology Familial searching is based on the power of modern computer databases and on genetic principles that are as old as the human species. With the exception of identical twins, each person's DNA profile is believed to be unique. But long stretches of the chemical sequences that make up the DNA molecule are identical in all humans. DNA analysis works by comparing areas, called alleles (uh-LEELS), where the sequence varies greatly among individuals. Since the mid-1990s, the USA and the United Kingdom have maintained databases that use a series of such alleles to match DNA from unsolved crimes to known or suspected offenders. In the USA, states and the federal government keep DNA indexes of suspects and unsolved crimes, and share information through a computer system maintained by the FBI. Here's where it gets tricky: Siblings inherit their DNA from both parents, meaning that even non-twin siblings often have several alleles in common. Only a complete match 26 identical alleles can be used to connect a suspect to an unsolved crime. But a near-match can indicate that the suspect is a close relative. In the North Carolina case, Anthony Brown's DNA matched the crime scene sample left by his brother at 16 alleles. There's a caveat, though: Unrelated people can have some of the same genetic markers. The Forensic Science Service (FSS), which runs Great Britain's DNA program, illustrated that in 1999. The FSS thought it had matched a DNA sample from the scene of an unsolved crime to a man who had a perfect alibi: He was in jail when the crime occurred. The convict's DNA and that from the crime scene sample matched at 12 alleles. Analyzing more genetic locations uncovered the mistake. It also gave the FSS an idea to search Britain's database, which now holds about 2.8 million samples, for near-matches as well as full matches. Britain was the likely place for familial searching to take root. The nation's DNA database is older and larger than the U.S. system, and Britain has few rules restricting its use. The FSS charges British police for its services; that creates a profit motive to develop new uses for the national database. The U.S. database system is authorized by a mesh of more than 50 state and federal laws that include harsh penalties for privacy violations. In Britain, where DNA was first used to solve a criminal case, the FSS is largely self-regulated. "We believe in what we're doing, and we're going forward," says Richard Pinchin, who runs the FSS's familial searching program. "If you want a debate, we say, 'Fine, bring it on.' " Britain scores several successes Since July 2003, the FSS has allowed investigators who have not found matches for DNA samples from crime scenes to search Britain's database for names and descriptions of those whose DNA profiles are close. Because such a search can produce thousands of names, the FSS also gives police the physical description and home address of a near-match for comparison with potential suspects. If the crime scene sample carries an allele that is common among people from a certain region say, South Wales investigators are given the names of near-matches from that locality. This familial searching technique has scored several successes in Britain. In 2002, the FSS analyzed DNA samples from the rapes and slayings of three Welsh teenagers that had been unsolved for 29 years. Lab technicians noticed a genetic pattern that often is found in people from the vicinity of Port Talbot, South Wales. A Port Talbot man, Joseph Kappen, had been suspected in the crimes but was not linked to them before his death 12 years earlier. Kappen's body was exhumed; his full DNA profile showed he was the rapist and killer. A year later, familial searching solved another Welsh homicide. The killer, Jeffrey Gafoor, was found 15 years after the slaying of a woman in Cardiff because of unusual alleles he shared with a 14-year-old nephew. The nephew, who hadn't been born when the slaying occurred, had been added to the nation's DNA database after committing a juvenile offense. Gafoor pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. Through April, familial searching in Britain had solved nine cases by finding close relatives of killers or rapists whose DNA profiles are in the national database. Among its successes: a rapist with a distinct North of England accent who was traced through a brother on the database. Both carried alleles common to England's north country. "We're having a positive effect on cases (and) preventing additional victims," Pinchin says. "What's wrong there?" Patchwork of laws In the USA, there are few specific rules on familial searching. Federal privacy law bars the FBI from performing familial searches within its own database, says Thomas Callaghan, director of the bureau's database program. New York and Massachusetts have laws that authorize familial searching, according to the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics. Informal policies in other states vary. California's DNA database technicians report partial matches that "appear useful" to law enforcement, but they do not actively search for relatives, says Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for the state attorney general. In Virginia, lab examiners are permitted to tell investigators that a crime scene sample might have come from a family member when the DNA near-match is "very, very close," state database manager George Li says. Beginning this year, Florida's DNA database operators have been permitted to give investigators the names of convicted offenders who match a crime scene sample at 21 of 26 alleles. State crime lab supervisor David Coffman says research using Florida's convicted offender database suggests that men who have 21 alleles in common almost always are brothers. Florida also has begun searching its database for rape suspects by using the DNA of children born to rape victims to identify their fathers. The database has helped solve at least eight rape cases that way. The practices are drawing increasing criticism as they become more common. Dan Krane, a DNA specialist at Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio, says familial searching "puts someone in jeopardy of investigation simply because his brother committed a crime." "That's the sins of the father being visited on the son," Krane says. "That's contrary to the whole idea of our criminal justice system." Helen Wallace, deputy director of Genewatch, a privacy rights group in Derbyshire, England, says familial searches are certain to uncover family secrets, such as revealing that supposed siblings actually are not related by blood. "This has significant implications for privacy, but it has all happened with no public discussion," Wallace says. "It's just done, and we're presented with it." Even DNA scientists are wary of the technology's power. "The average Joe on the street, if he knew what could be done (with DNA databases), he would be worried about privacy," Li says. "I think the average Joe is right." Frederick Bieber, a geneticist at Harvard Medical School, says privacy concerns raised by familial searching could be addressed by setting rules that determine "how far into the family tree (a genetic search) can go." He says more research is needed to help states determine when near-matches invade innocent people's privacy. "We can't just open the floodgates and unleash this (without) rules to protect the freedoms and liberties of those who are potentially subject to intrusive searches," Bieber says. But "how could you not use (DNA)? It has tremendous potential as an investigative tool."