Overly restrictive laws will inhibit forensic genetic genealogy

College graduation is a time for celebrating accomplishments and anticipating life's potential.

But not for Beth (a pseudonym). The night of her college graduation ended in horror, with an unknown man breaking into her home and violently raping her. The only evidence was DNA evidence. A DNA profile, consisting of just 13 locations on the entire genome, was extracted and uploaded into the national forensic DNA database called CODIS. But there was no match for months and then years, leaving no resolution and no justice, only fear and trauma.

Only a rape victim understands the pain and suffering they bear, but national statistics give us an idea. Rape victims are three times more likely to suffer chronic depression, 13 times more likely to abuse alcohol, 26 times more likely to abuse drugs and four times more likely to commit suicide. Rape shatters lives. Many times justice can heal.

Finally, after years of no progress, due to a new application of DNA technology, Beth's rapist was identified. And Beth had not been his only victim. He had raped again and again.

Without this new method, called forensic genetic genealogy, or FGG, Beth's rapist would never have been identified and she would have spent the rest of her life living in fear.

FGG is a technique for identifying criminal suspects by searching a crime scene DNA profile against genealogy databases with the intent of identifying a criminal's genetic relatives, and through research using public records and existing genealogy techniques not related to DNA, identifying the offender within the family tree. At this point, a court-ordered STR DNA match (the type used by CODIS) must still be made before a charge can be made.

FGG, as with a traditional CODIS match, provides only an investigative lead. Traditional investigation techniques must still be used to build a case.

FGG has proven to be very successful. The California Golden State Killer, who murdered at least eight people and raped at least 43 between 1975 and 1986, was identified, arrested and convicted as a result of FGG in 2018. Several hundred more criminal identifications have been made through FGG since then.

Unfortunately, some states, like Maryland and Montana, have recently passed laws restricting law enforcements' use of FGG due to privacy concerns.

There are misconceptions about FGG and how it is used. It is important to note that personal genetic information is not transferred, retrieved, downloaded, or retained by FGG service users -- including law enforcement -- during the automated search and comparison process. No one, including law enforcement is privy to the actual DNA information in the genealogical databases. Nor do they get access to peruse the DNA database. Investigators merely upload a DNA profile to the database and receive a list of matches and partial matches, exactly like the average user of the database would. The chance of anyone's actual DNA information being released is non-existent.

Partly due to the concern for privacy, on Sept. 24, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice released an interim policy statement on "Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching." This includes best practices that must be used by any agency associated with or receiving grant funding from the DOJ. Among these best practices are the requirement that FGG analysis and searching can only be used for violent crimes, and only after DNA profiles have been uploaded to CODIS with no results. The investigative agency must also collaborate with a CODIS designated lab official, as well as with prosecutors and proceed only if there is agreement. The information can only be used for law enforcement identification purposes and cannot be used to determine the sample donor's genetic predisposition for disease or any other medical condition or psychological trait. There are also strict guidelines for the destruction of all information as well as very specific reporting rules. Now in addition to those DOJ guidelines two states--Maryland and Montana -- have passed laws that are more restrictive and further limit the use of FGG.

Violent crime destroys lives. Victims of violent crimes deserve justice, resolution and healing. FGG has brought that to many victims.

Yes, privacy is a concern. And beyond privacy, we must make certain that FGG searches are conducted in a methodical, scientific way.

Our organization, DNA Saves, was established after the murder of our daughter Katie, who was a 22-year-old graduate student when she was brutally raped and murdered. Katie fought for her life and collected her murderer's DNA under her fingernails. There was no other evidence. Through DNA Saves, we advocate for the responsible use of DNA to solve crimes, prevent crimes and save lives. Our family knows how desperately crime victims and their families need justice, resolution and healing. FGG is making that happen; after all other investigative methods have failed.

Yes, we need strong governing policies for FGG in order to safeguard the privacy of third-party individuals who are found to have a possible genetic relationship with the unidentified person suspected of rape or murder. But these policies should not overreach and make FGG so cumbersome that these investigations are needlessly hindered. There must be a balance. We believe the US Department of Justice policy statement on "Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching" provides that balance. Rather than passing overly proscriptive laws, states should first consider whether investigative oversight panels can be convened to review FGG requests--responding in real-time to both public safety threats and also community concerns of privacy, without creating permanent investigative impediments based on unfounded fears of privacy intrusion. This process is described in detail in the U.S. Department of Justice's policy, and it is a good blueprint for states to follow.

FGG is solving cold case crimes. It is bringing that much needed justice. It is identifying rapists and killers who live among us, undetected and unpunished for unspeakable crimes. Responsible oversight of FGG will protect privacy. But it must be balanced with a true intent to allow law enforcement to access FGG searches as a means for solving cases. Creating a system that unnecessarily limits the use of FGG will only leave more lives at risk. 