Genetic fingerprinting is based on the fact that certain regions on the DNA differ in every human being (except in identical twins) and are thus unmistakable. To determine them, the smallest amounts of genetic material (in principle already one cell), which can be found e.g. in hair, saliva, sperm or blood, are sufficient.
In order to identify a person, genetic material obtained from him or her is automatically compared with material stored in a database (currently about 400,000 data records in Germany). However, there is a very small risk of false positive or false negative matching (i.e., someone is falsely said to have DNA that matches an existing sample, or the sample is dismissed as not identical even though its pattern is in the database). This is because only 12-16 gene loci are compared rather than the entire DNA, resulting in only a statistical probability of a match.
The genetic fingerprint allows to determine the identity, but not further statements, for example, about gender, skin color or hereditary diseases, because these are stored in other, so-called coding DNA sections (i.e. those with genetic information). In Germany, it is used on the one hand to solve crimes (similar to the “classic” fingerprint), and on the other hand to clarify paternity issues.
Discussion points
Information obtained in genetic analyses is sensitive data that may allow conclusions to be drawn about diseases or genetic defects. Thus, there is a risk that this information could be used without authorization or used against the bearer. For example, employers could define genetic information as hiring criteria, or health insurers could increase their premiums to the detriment of those affected.
Ethical aspects have also been the subject of intense debate since the advent of genetic research. The debate about preimplantation genetic diagnosis illustrates this, as does, for example, the question of what consequences increasingly sophisticated prenatal diagnostics will have for parents, children and ultimately society. Will parents who knowingly give birth to a child with a genetic defect be under pressure to justify their actions in the future (or are they already doing so?). What does this mean for our self-image and our acceptance behavior towards disabilities and diseases? Will our health care system in the future cover follow-up costs for disabilities only to a limited extent or not at all?
These questions are only a few of the huge range that both individuals and society already have to deal with today, and which show that what is possible, necessary, desirable and ethically justifiable are not always identical.
