How Forensic DNA Technology Could Predict Suspect Faces: Experts Warn of Potential Racial Bias

Fighting Crime With Science

In her teenage years, Dr. Susan Walsh was captivated by “The X-Files,” especially by Dana Scully, a doctor who used science to investigate unusual cases. Scully’s approach to solving mysteries and seeking justice inspired Walsh to consider a career in forensics.

After studying biochemistry and working on her master’s in DNA profiling, Walsh found a research paper discussing DNA markers linked to eye color. This sparked her interest in using genetic techniques for criminal investigations. She realized that analyzing crime-scene DNA for physical traits could help law enforcement identify suspects more easily. “Oh wow, that’s so cool that we’ll one day be able to predict what people look like with DNA,” she thought.

Now, Walsh is an assistant professor at Indiana University Indianapolis, where she leads a lab focused on forensic DNA phenotyping (FDP). Her research focuses on finding genes associated with hair, skin, and eye color, and she has created an open-source tool for law enforcement to help predict these traits from DNA.

Walsh’s work shows that the techniques she envisioned can work. Analyzing DNA can reveal information about traits, allowing investigators to prioritize suspects. For example, if DNA hints that a suspect might have red hair, they could focus on red-haired individuals to narrow down their investigation.

While Walsh sees potential in this method, she urges caution. Predicting facial features from DNA remains largely uncertain. The complexity of facial structures involves both genetics and environmental factors. “We can’t even do a nose right now,” she admits, emphasizing that the science isn’t yet reliable enough to create accurate facial predictions.

The Science Isn’t There

A private company called Parabon NanoLabs, established in 2008, initially focused on cancer therapies but pivoted to forensic products, including DNA phenotyping. They offer a service called Snapshot, claiming it can predict eye, hair, and skin color, as well as suggest face shape. This service has intrigued law enforcement agencies, but it has raised significant concerns among scientists.

Experts argue that Parabon’s predictions may be misleading, as the science supporting their methods lacks independent verification and validation. This lack of scrutiny raises concerns about wrongful convictions and racial profiling, particularly in a legal system that frequently faces accusations of bias.

Walsh has repeatedly sought clarity from Parabon on their methods but has been frustrated by the company’s secrecy. During a workshop on emerging forensic technologies, Walsh voiced her skepticism, calling for better scientific practices in this field. She believes that selling predictive composites to police can be harmful.

Critics like Rebecca Brown, a legal policy expert, warn that these practices can lead to dangerous consequences, such as increasing surveillance in marginalized communities. The use of unproven tools can compromise investigations and infringe on constitutional rights.

Marketing a DNA Blueprint

Parabon’s foray into forensic DNA profiling started with contracts linked to military projects, leading to the development of Snapshot. By 2015, the company marketed this technology to police as a revolutionary investigative tool. They claimed it could help generate leads based on DNA samples.

In real cases, like that of Lisa Ziegert, police used Parabon’s faded image to identify a suspect. Although the technology seems promising, experts caution that using such composites can distort the investigative process and lead to incorrect assumptions.

Parabon has provided over 70 composites to police, but many cases remain undisclosed, keeping defense attorneys unaware of the methods used to identify suspects, posing risks to fairness in trials.

Many experts advocate for independent verification of these methods, similar to safeguards in other fields like healthcare and aviation. Such scrutiny ensures that forensic tools accurately meet their intended purpose.

Behind the Scenes

Despite Parabon’s claims of providing only investigative leads, critics argue that using such models without adequate validation can lead police to make unfounded assumptions. The information might never reach the defense in court, further complicating the balance of justice.

Defenders of civil rights raise concerns about the lack of transparency surrounding these practices. They argue that the reasoning behind targeting specific racial groups can lead to systemic issues within the justice system.

Current trends toward DNA phenotyping further complicate matters, as they can disproportionately affect communities of color and reinforce negative stereotypes through biased investigations.

Ensnared in a Dragnet

In a notable case, the NYPD’s use of Parabon’s phenotyping after a woman was murdered led to mass collection of DNA from Black men, highlighting the potential for racial profiling in the justice system. Chanel Lewis, a young man with developmental issues, was wrongfully implicated, raising alarms about the ethical implications of relying on phenotyping predictions.

Questions arise about how police interpretations of these predictions influence their investigative strategies, including whether these methods violate Fourth Amendment rights. The ongoing legal battles surrounding such cases exemplify the need for clearer guidelines and greater accountability in the use of DNA technology.

Calls for scrutiny and validation of forensic tools remain crucial. If tools employed in criminal investigations cannot withstand scientific review, their place in the legal system becomes highly questionable.

As experts continue to advocate for transparency and accuracy, the potential implications of using DNA phenotyping in policing are becoming increasingly clear. There must be careful consideration of how this technology may prevent justice rather than enhance it.