ArticleHeliyon2024
Opt-in or out? Public perspectives on forensic DNA kinship investigations within the Dutch-speaking community.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Distant Kinship Inference and Forensic Genetic Genealogy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- FIGG at 5: An update on U.S. public perspectives on forensic investigative genetic genealogy five years after its introduction to criminal investigations.Forensic science international · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Forensic DNA kinship investigation involves analyzing genetic relationships between individuals to offer new leads for solving (cold) cases. Familial DNA matching has become a valuable asset in criminal case investigations, especially when traditional DNA methods hit dead ends. However, concerns surrounding ethical and privacy implications raised questions about its implementation and acceptance among the general public. The present study investigated the public perspectives regarding forensic DNA kinship investigations among 1710 Dutch-speaking Belgians using an online cross-sectional survey. The questionnaire consisted of three categories, including personal information, DNA knowledge, and their opinion on several familial DNA searching and investigative genetic genealogy related questions. The participants' average DNA knowledge score was 71 %, indicating a relatively high level of understanding of DNA-related concepts. Remarkably, the study revealed that 92 % of the participants expressed willingness to cooperate as a volunteer in a forensic DNA kinship investigation, irrespective of their scientific background or educational level. Key factors influencing participation included assurance of painless sampling and robust privacy safeguards. Participants lacking familiarity with DNA hesitated more towards participating in forensic DNA analysis, referring to "the fear of the unknown". Despite ethical and privacy concerns, the highly positive attitude towards forensic DNA analysis reflects a level of empathy and willingness to contribute to the pursuit of justice. Nearly all participants (95 %) agreed to use online DNA databases for resolving violent crimes with forensic genetic genealogy, but half emphasized the need for prior informed consent, referring to the current "opt-in" system. The results underscore the need for stringent regulations and ethical oversight to ensure the responsible use of genetic data while striking a balance between public safety and the protection of individuals' privacy rights. These findings add to the growing body of evidence regarding the potential benefits of forensic DNA kinship matching as a tool in criminal investigations, suggesting its potential future utilization and legalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.