Bryan Kohberger case: FBI’s DNA tactics didn’t violate law, but they raise another public safety concern

The Power and Ethics of Genetic Genealogy in Solving Crimes

Genetic genealogy, a rapidly evolving field, holds immense power in solving violent crimes, but with this power comes significant ethical responsibility. CeCe Moore, a pioneer in this field, emphasizes that genetic genealogists must conduct themselves with integrity to preserve a system heavily reliant on public participation. The case of Bryan Kohberger, implicated in the tragic murder of four University of Idaho students, exemplifies both the effectiveness and ethical dilemmas of this investigative tool. The FBI’s use of two private databases, which supposedly exclude law enforcement, has sparked debates on privacy concerns and public trust.

The Kohberger Case and the Role of DNA Evidence

In November 2022, four students—Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—were found stabbed to death. A knife sheath discovered under Mogen’s body provided a DNA sample that didn’t match any in the FBI’s criminal databases or two smaller genealogy databases. This impasse led investigators to access MyHeritage and GEDmatch, ultimately identifying Kohberger as a suspect. His arrest in December 2022 highlighted the critical role of genetic genealogy in solving cases where traditional methods fall short. However, this approach also raises questions about privacy and consent.

Ethical Considerations and Legal Boundaries

Moore’s team avoids databases that restrict law enforcement access to maintain public trust, fearing that misuse could deter participation in genetic genealogy. Judge Steven Hippler ruled that the FBI’s actions were legal, distinguishing between breaking laws and violating terms of service. This ruling underscores the legal versus ethical debate, where actions may be lawful yet contravene database policies. Moore acknowledges that while investigator actions may be legal, they risk public outcry, potentially undermining future investigations.

Public Trust and the Future of Genetic Genealogy

Public concern centers on unwittingly aiding investigations through shared DNA data. While many support using genetic genealogy to combat crime, the fear of unintended consequences looms large. Larger platforms like 23andMe and AncestryDNA, requiring direct DNA samples, avoid such issues, but crime scene samples often lack this precision. Maintaining public trust is crucial for the continued effectiveness of genetic genealogy, as without voluntary participation, this tool’s potential is severely limited.

Practical Aspects and Public Perception

The practicalities of DNA sampling reveal another layer of complexity. Crime scene DNA, often less accurate than direct samples, necessitates the use of genealogy databases. Despite these challenges, public support for such methods is strong, with 91% endorsing its use for violent crimes, and many favoring its application to lesser offenses. This support, however, is conditional on ethical use and transparency.

Conclusion: Balancing Privacy and Justice

The future of genetic genealogy hinges on striking a balance between privacy and justice. While it offers unparalleled investigative power, its misuse could erode public trust. Moore’s cautious approach advocates for using this tool within legal and ethical boundaries, ensuring it remains a viable resource for justice. As the field evolves, ongoing dialogue between law enforcement, ethicists, and the public is essential to navigate the complexities and sustain this powerful tool for crime-solving.