U.S. Adult Perspectives on Facial Images, DNA, and Other Biometrics.

Applications of biometrics in various societal contexts have been increasing in the United States, and policy debates about potential restrictions and expansions for specific biometrics (such as facial recognition and DNA identification) have been intensifying. Empirical data about public perspectives on different types of biometrics can inform these debates. We surveyed 4048 adults to explore perspectives regarding experience and comfort with six types of biometrics; comfort providing biometrics in distinct scenarios; trust in social actors to use two types of biometrics (facial images and DNA) responsibly; acceptability of facial images in eight scenarios; and perceived effectiveness of facial images for five tasks. Respondents were generally comfortable with biometrics. Trust in social actors to use biometrics responsibly appeared to be context specific rather than dependent on biometric type. Contrary to expectations given mounting attention to dataveillance concerns, we did not find sociodemographic factors to influence perspectives on biometrics in obvious ways. These findings underscore a need for qualitative approaches to understand the contextual factors that trigger strong opinions of comfort with and acceptability of biometrics in different settings, by different actors, and for different purposes and to identify the informational needs relevant to the development of appropriate policies and oversight.

Framing the utility and potential pitfalls of relationship and identity DNA testing across United States immigration contexts.

Genetic information is increasingly used at US border entry points, but the use of DNA in immigration contexts is not new. DNA testing for verification of identity or relationships for visa and asylum petitions began in the 1980s. Long-standing applications demonstrate both the utility and pitfalls of DNA testing in immigration contexts. Some of these pitfalls are shared with health-related contexts of DNA testing, but the power of government officials to deny immigration benefits, separate families, or make accusations of fraud among a vulnerable population elevates the potential harms, including stigmatization, discrimination, and coerced consent. We conducted semi-structured interviews with professional stakeholders on their understandings of the process of DNA testing, opinions on the role of DNA testing in immigration, and experiences with DNA applications in immigration. From the 22 interviews, we sourced 21 case examples involving DNA testing and supplemented these with 10 case examples provided by the study team. The 31 case examples capture instances of DNA testing for relationship or identity across five immigration contexts. Using the case examples, we developed three overarching utilities and six overarching pitfalls of DNA testing that apply across these immigration contexts. Our framework allows long-standing applications of DNA testing in immigration to inform stakeholders' approaches to applications in new contexts. As the use of DNA data in immigration contexts expands, its implementation should recognize the utility of DNA data to both migrants and government while guarding against pitfalls that could undermine the human rights and dignity of a vulnerable population.

A survey of U.S. public perspectives on facial recognition technology and facial imaging data practices in health and research contexts.

Facial imaging and facial recognition technologies, now common in our daily lives, also are increasingly incorporated into health care processes, enabling touch-free appointment check-in, matching patients accurately, and assisting with the diagnosis of certain medical conditions. The use, sharing, and storage of facial data is expected to expand in coming years, yet little is documented about the perspectives of patients and participants regarding these uses. We developed a pair of surveys to gather public perspectives on uses of facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and in health-related research in the United States. We used Qualtrics Panels to collect responses from general public respondents using two complementary and overlapping survey instruments; one focused on six types of biometrics (including facial images and DNA) and their uses in a wide range of societal contexts (including healthcare and research) and the other focused on facial imaging, facial recognition technology, and related data practices in health and research contexts specifically. We collected responses from a diverse group of 4,048 adults in the United States (2,038 and 2,010, from each survey respectively). A majority of respondents (55.5%) indicated they were equally worried about the privacy of medical records, DNA, and facial images collected for precision health research. A vignette was used to gauge willingness to participate in a hypothetical precision health study, with respondents split as willing to (39.6%), unwilling to (30.1%), and unsure about (30.3%) participating. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (24.8%) reported they would prefer to opt out of the DNA component of a study, and 22.0% reported they would prefer to opt out of both the DNA and facial imaging component of the study. Few indicated willingness to pay a fee to opt-out of the collection of their research data. Finally, respondents were offered options for ideal governance design of their data, as "open science"; "gated science"; and "closed science." No option elicited a majority response. Our findings indicate that while a majority of research participants might be comfortable with facial images and facial recognition technologies in healthcare and health-related research, a significant fraction expressed concern for the privacy of their own face-based data, similar to the privacy concerns of DNA data and medical records. A nuanced approach to uses of face-based data in healthcare and health-related research is needed, taking into consideration storage protection plans and the contexts of use.

Ethical considerations for DNA testing as a proxy for nationality.

As nations strengthen borders and restrict refugee admissions, national security officials are screening for fraudulent nationality claims. One tool to investigate nationality claims is DNA testing, either for claimed relationships or for ancestral origins. At the same time, the plight of global statelessness leaves millions without documentation of their nationality, and DNA testing might be the only recourse to provide evidence of heritage or relationships. DNA testing has been used sparsely to date to determine ancestral origin as a proxy for nationality but could increase as border controls tighten. Given the historic lessons in eugenics and the potential for misuse of personal genetic information, it is essential to consider the ethical parameters in order to guide the implementation of genetic data for such purposes. Here, we break down examples of the use of DNA testing for nationality, and the risks and benefits of genetic testing for this purpose. Important ethical considerations discussed include (1) empowerment of stateless individuals with evidence for citizenship proceedings; (2) imprecise correlation between genetic heritage and nationality; (3) effective protection of state interests; and (4) practicalities of DNA testing.

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

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.

Caring for trafficked and unidentified patients in the EHR shadows: Shining a light by sharing the data.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare providers have key roles in the prevention of, detection of, and interventions for human trafficking. Yet caring for trafficked persons is particularly challenging: patients whose identities are unknown, unreliable, or false could receive subpar care from providers delivering care in a vacuum of relevant information. The application of precision medicine principles and integration of biometric data (including genetic information) could facilitate patient identification, enable longitudinal medical records, and improve continuity and quality of care for this vulnerable patient population. Scant empirical data exist regarding healthcare system preparedness and care for the needs of this vulnerable population nor data on perspectives on the use and risks of biometrics or genetic information for trafficked patients. METHODS: To address this gap, we conducted mixed-methods research involving semi-structured interviews with key informants, which informed a subsequent broad survey of physicians and registered nurses. RESULTS: Our findings support the perception that trafficked persons obtain care yet remain unnoticed or undocumented in the electronic health record. Our survey findings further reveal that healthcare providers remain largely unaware of human trafficking issues and are inadequately prepared to provide patient-centered care for trafficked and unidentified patients. CONCLUSION: Meaningful efforts to design and implement precision medicine initiatives in an inclusive way that optimizes impacts are unlikely to succeed without concurrent efforts to increase general awareness of and preparedness to care for trafficked persons. Additional research is needed to examine properly the potential utility for biometrics to improve the delivery of care for trafficked patients.

Conversations Surrounding the Use of DNA Tests in the Family Reunification of Migrants Separated at the United States-Mexico Border in 2018.

In April 2018, the U.S. implemented a "zero-tolerance" immigration policy that would lead to the separation of more than 2,000 migrant families over the following months. By that summer, the policy and resultant family separations had generated a media storm that swept up the public. In early June, the government announced its consideration of DNA testing to aid in the detection of human trafficking in immigration contexts. Later that month, as the government retracted the child separation policy, the public began questioning how children and adults would be reunited and discussing the potential usefulness of DNA testing for those reunifications. Then in early July, the government announced that DNA testing was indeed being used, and by mid-month the public's outrage over the use of DNA was strong. We set out to examine the public dialogue on DNA testing-including misunderstandings and miscommunications-both in newspaper coverage and on Twitter in the 2-month summer period of 2018, at the height of public discussion of migrant family separations and then reunifications. We performed database searches identifying 263 newspaper articles and used Twitter's advanced search function identifying 153 Tweets containing discussion of the use of DNA for migrant family reunification. Upon the resulting sources, we performed content analysis, analyzing for slant on the immigration policy and the use of DNA tests using a combination of open and closed codes. Our analysis showed that perspectives on the use of DNA diverged in connection with perspectives on the immigration policy, and that there was a contrast among the cohorts in the stated utility of DNA testing. These findings offer insight into a) how DNA testing in a highly politicized immigration context was represented in media coverage and b) the public's understanding of the role that DNA testing could or should play in immigration. By detailing the role that comments from experts, stakeholders, and the public played in these discussions, we hope to provide lessons for communications with the public about future non-medical applications of genetic technologies.

Consent process for US-based family reference DNA samples.

DNA collection from family members of the missing is a tenet for missing persons' and mass fatality investigations. Procedures for consenting family members are disparate, depending on the context supporting the reason for sample collection. While guidelines and best practices have been developed for handling mass fatalities and for identification of the missing, these guidelines do not address standard consent practices for living family members of potential victims. We examined the relevant U.S. laws, international guidelines and best practices, sampled consent forms currently used for DNA collection of family members, and drafted model language for a consent form to communicate the required and recommended information. We modeled the consent form on biobank consenting practices and tested the consent language among students and the general population for constructive feedback and readability. We also asked respondents to consider the options for DNA collection and either hypothetically agree or disagree. The model language presented here highlights information important to relay in consent processes and can serve as a foundation for future consent practices in mass fatalities and missing persons' investigations.

Preliminary perspectives on DNA collection in anti-human trafficking efforts.

Forensic DNA methodologies have potential applications in the investigation of human trafficking cases. DNA and relationship testing may be useful for confirmation of biological relationship claims in immigration, identification of trafficked individuals who are missing persons, and family reunification of displaced individuals after mass disasters and conflicts. As these applications rely on the collection of DNA from non-criminals and potentially vulnerable individuals, questions arise as to how to address the ethical challenges of collection, security, and privacy of collected samples and DNA profiles. We administered a survey targeted to victims' advocates to gain preliminary understanding of perspectives regarding human trafficking definitions, DNA and sex workers, and perceived trust of authorities potentially involved in DNA collection. We asked respondents to consider the use of DNA for investigating adoption fraud, sex trafficking, and post-conflict child soldier cases. We found some key differences in perspectives on defining what qualifies as "trafficking." When we varied terminology between "sex worker" and "sex trafficking victim" we detected differences in perception on which authorities can be trusted. Respondents were supportive of the hypothetical models proposed to collect DNA. Most were favorable of DNA specimens being controlled by an authority outside of law enforcement. Participants voiced concerns focused on privacy, misuse of DNA samples and data, unintentional harms, data security, and infrastructure. These preliminary data indicate that while there is perceived value in programs to use DNA for investigating cases of human trafficking, these programs may need to consider levels of trust in authorities as their logistics are developed and implemented.

Brave New World of human-rights DNA collection.

Noncriminal DNA databases may serve a societal role in identifying victims of crime and human trafficking. However, how do we safeguard personal privacy of innocent victims and family members?

Personal DNA testing in college classrooms: perspectives of students and professors.

Discourse on the integration of personal genetics and genomics into classrooms is increasing; however, limited data have been collected on the perspectives of students and professors. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of undergraduate and graduate students as well as professors at two major universities to assess attitudes regarding the use of personal DNA testing and other personalized activities in college classrooms. Students indicated that they were more likely to enroll (60.2%) in a genetics course if it offered personal DNA testing; undergraduate students were more likely than graduate students to enroll if personal DNA testing was offered (p=0.029). Students who majored in the physical sciences were less likely to enroll than students in the biological or social sciences (p=0.019). Students also indicated that when course material is personalized, the course is more interesting (94.6%) and the material is easier to learn (87.3%). Professors agreed that adding a personalized element increases student interest, participation, and learning (86.0%, 82.6%, and 72.6%, respectively). The results of this study indicate that, overall, students and professors had a favorable view of the integration of personalized information, including personal DNA testing, into classroom activities, and students welcomed more opportunities to participate in personalized activities.

Characterization of the standard and recommended CODIS markers.

As U.S. courts grapple with constitutional challenges to DNA identification applications, judges are resting legal decisions on the fingerprint analogy, questioning whether the information from a DNA profile could, in light of scientific advances, reveal biomedically relevant information. While CODIS loci were selected largely because they lack phenotypic associations, how this criterion was assessed is unclear. To clarify their phenotypic relevance, we describe the standard and recommended CODIS markers within the context of what is known currently about the genome. We characterize the genomic regions and phenotypic associations of the 24 standard and suggested CODIS markers. None of the markers are within exons, although 12 are intragenic. No CODIS genotypes are associated with known phenotypes. This study provides clarification of the genomic significance of the key identification markers and supports--independent of the forensic scientific community--that the CODIS profiles provide identification but not sensitive or biomedically relevant information.

Policy implications for familial searching.

In the United States, several states have made policy decisions regarding whether and how to use familial searching of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database in criminal investigations. Familial searching pushes DNA typing beyond merely identifying individuals to detecting genetic relatedness, an application previously reserved for missing persons identifications and custody battles. The intentional search of CODIS for partial matches to an item of evidence offers law enforcement agencies a powerful tool for developing investigative leads, apprehending criminals, revitalizing cold cases and exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals. As familial searching involves a range of logistical, social, ethical and legal considerations, states are now grappling with policy options for implementing familial searching to balance crime fighting with its potential impact on society. When developing policies for familial searching, legislators should take into account the impact of familial searching on select populations and the need to minimize personal intrusion on relatives of individuals in the DNA database. This review describes the approaches used to narrow a suspect pool from a partial match search of CODIS and summarizes the economic, ethical, logistical and political challenges of implementing familial searching. We examine particular US state policies and the policy options adopted to address these issues. The aim of this review is to provide objective background information on the controversial approach of familial searching to inform policy decisions in this area. Herein we highlight key policy options and recommendations regarding effective utilization of familial searching that minimize harm to and afford maximum protection of US citizens.