Ethics in Transnational Forensic DNA Data Exchange in the EU: Constructing Boundaries and Managing Controversies

被引:17
作者
Machado, Helena [1 ]
Granja, Rafaela [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minho, Commun & Soc Res Ctr CECS, Braga, Portugal
基金
欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Prum; ethics; sociality of science; boundary work; controversies; SCIENCE; LEGAL; SOCIOLOGY; WORK; IMAGINARIES; NONSCIENCE; KNOWLEDGE; POLITICS; EXPERTS; LAW;
D O I
10.1080/09505431.2018.1425385
中图分类号
G [文化、科学、教育、体育]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 04 ;
摘要
Under EU Law, Member States are compelled to engage in reciprocal automated forensic DNA profile exchange for stepping up on cross-border cooperation, particularly in combating terrorism and cross-border crime. The ethical implications of this transnational DNA data exchange are paramount. Exploring what the concept of ethics means to forensic practitioners actively involved in transnational DNA data exchange allows discussing how ethics can be addressed as embedded in the sociality of science and in the way scientific work is legitimated. The narratives of forensic practitioners juxtapose the construction of fluid ethical boundary work between science and non-science with the dynamic management of controversies, both of which are seen as ways to lend legitimacy and objectivity to scientific work.Ethical boundary work involves diverse fluid forms: as a boundary between science/ethics, science/criminal justice system, and good and bad science. The management of controversies occurs in three interrelated ways. First, through a continuous process of reconstructing delegations of responsibility in dealing with uncertainty surrounding the reliability of DNA evidence. Second, threats to the protection of data are portrayed as being resolved by black-boxing privacy. Finally, controversies related to social accountability and transparency are negotiated through the lens of opening science to the public.
引用
收藏
页码:242 / 264
页数:23
相关论文
共 71 条
[21]   Sociology, ethics, and the priority of the particular: learning from a case study of genetic deliberations [J].
Haimes, Erica ;
Williams, Robin .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 2007, 58 (03) :457-476
[22]   Collecting, testing and convincing: Forensic DNA experts in the courts [J].
Halfon, S .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 1998, 28 (5-6) :801-828
[23]   The drugs don't work: Expectations and the shaping of pharmacogenetics [J].
Hedgecoe, A ;
Martin, P .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 2003, 33 (03) :327-364
[24]   An "Ethical Moment" in Data Sharing [J].
Heeney, Catherine .
SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY & HUMAN VALUES, 2017, 42 (01) :3-28
[25]   Risky profiles: societal dimensions of forensic uses of DNA profiling technologies [J].
Heinemann, Torsten ;
Lemke, Thomas ;
Prainsack, Barbara .
NEW GENETICS AND SOCIETY, 2012, 31 (03) :249-258
[26]  
Hindmarsh Richard., 2010, GENETIC SUSPECTS GLO
[27]  
Hufnagel S, 2015, ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW, P107
[28]   The eye of everyman: Witnessing DNA in the Simpson trial [J].
Jasanoff, S .
SOCIAL STUDIES OF SCIENCE, 1998, 28 (5-6) :713-740
[29]   Just evidence: The limits of science in the legal process [J].
Jasanoff, Sheila .
JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS, 2006, 34 (02) :328-+
[30]  
Jasanoff Sheila., 1995, Science and the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America