Genetic Databases and Witnesses. Genealogy, Social issues, Circulation – FiTeGe

Our approach is qualitative. We are conducting a series of interviews with judges and public prosecutors, police officers, high-ranking civil servants, geneticists in public and private laboratories, heads of professional trade unions and victim support organisations, opponents to the database, etc. These interviews are supplemented by ‘hearings’ with the actors concerned, in the shape of meetings with the project members. Furthermore, we are observing legal proceedings in which genetic expertise is used. We are also collecting and analysing different corpora comprising documents from the mainstream press, scientific articles in forensic science, legal and regulatory texts, and records of parliamentary commission debates.

The first scientific task analyses the conditions under which the Fichier National Automatisé des Empreintes Génétiques (the French DNA profile database, FNAEG) was established and has been implemented, as well as how its scope has evolved. Our main result relates to the changes in public problems underpinning the creation and evolution of the database. The database was originally part of long-term legislative work on curbing sexual assault on minors and preventing recidivism in these cases, however its scope rapidly extended to other crimes and offences that jeopardise public safety. The second scientific task focuses on changes in scientific, ethical, political, and legal frameworks linked to determining physical and genetic characteristics (geographical origin, eye/hair colour, predisposition to certain illnesses, etc.) and to current debates surrounding the FNAEG. Our results include the fact that genetic tests determining suspects’ geographical origin (known as TOGG), were used around twenty times in France between 2007 and 2011, and can shed particular light on contemporary changes surrounding origin. Our results also show that these TOGG gave rise to a controversy that was as political as it was ethical. Finally, we have found that public opposition to the FNAEG is relatively rare and mainly foregrounds values of citizenship and arguments about the nature of the genetic markers analysed. The third scientific task consists in analysing the legal, political, and social stakes of automatic comparisons between European States linked by the Prüm Convention. Our study shows that processes of cooperation and interpretations of the provisions of Decision 2008/615/JHA are heterogeneous. It also shows that minimal harmonisation is lacking between European countries regarding the rules of access to their DNA database and highlights difficulties linked to the different ways in which crimes/offences are categorized under different national laws.

The acceleration/extension of the FNAEG lies at the intersection of dynamics of knowledge and practices relating to genetics tests, of concerns regarding the protection of people and property, and of European calls to harmonise repressive measures against crimes and offences. These interweaving timeframes will continue to be analysed by the first scientific task. As for the second scientific task, it will focus on completing the interviews underway and on writing scientific articles. These will focus in particular on penal government as regards genetics in France, as well as on the practices and stakes involved in new research in forensic science aimed at determining suspects’ physical appearance. The third scientific task will seek to analyse the social stakes of the Prüm Convention, particularly through specific cases of data exchange between European states. The team of legal specialists and the team of sociologists will link their work around this question, drawing fully on the interdisciplinary nature of the project. Several forms of technology transfer and dissemination are planned. Moreover, most members of the project teach seminars in the field of innovations, biotechnology and genetics, criminal and European law, and forensics and are committed to including their research in their teaching practice.

Publications: - Vailly J., Bellivier F., Noiville C., Rabeharisoa V. (2016) Les fichiers d’empreintes génétiques et les analyses d’ADN en droit pénal sous le regard du droit et de la sociologie. Cahiers Droits, Sciences & Technologies, 6, 43-53. - Vailly J. (2017). The politics of suspects’ geo-genetic origin in France : The conditions, expression, and effects of problematisation. BioSocieties, 12(1), 66-88 (online 18 October 2016). - Bellivier F., Noiville C. (2017) Les empreintes génétiques. Un régime fragile, entre caractéristiques génétiques et données personnelles, in dossier thématique “Droit, sciences et techniques : des concepts aux régimes”, onligne, open access: www.lex-electronica.org/articles/volume-22/ p. 97-116. - Vailly J. (2017). Les politiques de l’origine des suspects en France (2006-2014) : Témoins génétiques et problématisation, Politika, Le politique à l’épreuve des sciences sociales (forthcoming). The FiTeGe project’s workshop: Fichiers et témoins génétiques, MINES ParisTech, Paris. July 1st 2016. f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/2532/files/2015/03/PGM-FiTeGe-1-7-16.pdf Scientific communications list: fitege.hypotheses.org

While the vast majority of social science studies in the field of genetics relate to biomedicine, our project offers a different approach as it concerns the police and legal sphere. In a context of the increasing technicisation of police investigations, the emergence of genetic analyses has substantially changed practices. More generally, new professional tools are being developed, which evolve, give rise to new moral and political controversies, and circulate between different national and international professional spaces (scientific, legal, political, industrial, etc.).

Our project lies at the intersection of sociology, anthropology and law, but also, more peripherally, forensics, and will not analyse these stakes separately from the content and concrete forms of these innovations. More specifically, it aims to trace the genealogy of these innovations and analyse the practices they shape (and that shape them) as well as the controversies to which they give rise. While the question of the regime of evidence is central and will provide our common theme, it will also be examined from a variety of angles: what types of knowledge led to the development of these innovations? What is their supposed nature and what role do they play in defining categories of identification (suspect, potential suspect, person of a certain “origin”, etc.)? How do they influence how individuals and populations are governed? How do they come to circulate within the European Union?

The project calls upon four research centres with complementary areas of expertise and is composed of three scientific tasks, in addition to a task devoted to coordination and technology transfer. The first scientific task will look at the genealogy of DNA fingerprinting in France; the second will analyse new forms of knowledge in genetics and forensics, and the related social effects; the third will focus on the practices and stakes of the circulation of genetic data between France and the other European countries. Sociologists, anthropologists, legal specialists, and, more occasionally, a forensic scientist, will work collaboratively within each task. On a methodological level, we will conduct a series of interviews with judges, police officers, political officials, geneticists, victim support organisations, opponents to the database, etc. as well as observations of trials calling upon genetics expertise. We will collect and analyse several corpora composed of documents from the mainstream press, scientific articles in forensics, legal and regulatory texts, and records of parliamentary commission debates.

All in all, our project will develop: 1. An innovative nature: this field of research in the social sciences has never been studied in France. 2. An interdisciplinary approach: it lies at the intersection between sociology and anthropology, law and forensics. 3. International visibility: publications will be written for international journals and an international conference will be organised. 4. Technology transfer: our results will be disseminated among relevant actors (judges, lawyers, geneticists, etc.) through a Workshop, a training seminar aimed at judges and a lecture for the general public. Legal recommendations will be drawn up for public authorities. 5. Inclusion in teaching: participants who run seminars in the field of innovations and genetics, law and forensics will include their research in their teaching.