- Email: [email protected]
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification Caroline Bennett, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, UK Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Abstract The use of genetic methods (specifically DNA profiling) is increasingly popular in the identification of disaster victims. Where traditional modes of identification fall short, DNA profiling offers a statistically accurate means of providing positive identification of remains and of reassociating body parts. However, its use is not without problems, including logistical, practical, and social implications. Different cultures have different modes of identification, which may not be scientifically or biologically based, and DNA profiling may conflict with the strict norms and regulations related to treatment of the body after death.
The use of genetics in disaster victim identification (DVI) refers particularly to different methods of DNA profiling; it is one of a suite of methods, often used in conjunction with others, to provide positive, individual identification of human remains following a disaster. A disaster often produces conditions where human remains are degraded, fragmentary, and comingled; as such, the use of DNA is becoming increasingly relied upon to provide authoritative identification in preference over other, traditional, methods such as visual identification, fingerprint analysis, odontological comparison, and osteological analysis. DNA profiling evolved from the development of other modes of identification, such as the assessment of blood types to determine relatedness, within molecular biology. First commercially available in 1987, the use of DNA profiling as a means of individual identification has developed at a rapid pace over the past few decades. Until recently, it assumed a backseat to other methods of identification, however, due to scientific advances in profiling techniques, combined with increased media coverage and widely publicized successful identification efforts across the globe, and its inclusion in popular media and television shows, it has attained the status among many experts and publics alike as being the ultimate provider of identity. As such it has become almost synonymous with the word ‘identification’ in the context of DVI; in postdisaster management its use has come to represent responsible, well-ordered, and capable authority; to use DNA analysis in victim identification has become normalized as both a universally appropriate and superior technological intervention. It is therefore often an expected intervention in disaster settings, where many people view identification efforts as central to the process of responsible postdisaster management.
What Is a Disaster? A disaster is “a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources” (IFRC, 2013). These calamitous events may be natural (such as earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, or other environmentally based events), or of human origin
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 9
(air disasters or terrorist actions for example), but by definition, they cause events that require external assistance to manage. One of these events is often mass death. Management of the dead is one of the essential actions following a disaster, alongside care for survivors and reestablishment of basic services. It is a crucial aspect of reasserting control and order on a society and people thrown into chaos and disorder by the disaster event. In many (although by no means all) instances, this management includes individual identification of the deceased, and repatriation of the remains. Genetic profiling is becoming an increasingly popular mode of enabling this. Recent examples of disasters that have employed genetic means of identification include 9/11 (2792 deaths); the Asian tsunami of 2004 (over 220 000 deaths); Hurricane Katrina (1836 deaths); the 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia (173 deaths); and the 2011 Japanese earthquake (over 16 000 deaths).
How Are Genetic Methods Used in DVI? Whilst the forensic use of genetics is vast, ranging from paternity testing to perpetrator identification, in DVI it is primarily used in two contexts: to provide positive identification of recovered human remains, and to reassociate body parts with one another (to provide as complete a body for identification and repatriation as possible). In the latter case, particularly in disaster situations, the effectiveness of DNA profiling is without comparison as a mode of analysis. In addition, where appropriate, the use of DNA analysis may be used within a disaster to assess perpetrator identification. The use of DNA profiling enables the matching of one person to another or of one body part to another, through the matching of particular sequences of information within the strands of DNA contained within biological remains. Although all human beings share 99.9% of their genetic information with other members of their species, the remaining 0.1% are unique for every individual (except between monozygotic twins and multiples). It is this variation that enables DNA profiling to be so accurate in its identification (see Genetics and Forensics). The specific loci of investigation within the DNA depends upon the method chosen for analysis, and this method depends upon many factors: the aims of the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.82066-8
945
946
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
investigation (identification or body part reassociation for example), the condition of remains, the type of biological material available (teeth, blood, or saliva for example), the environmental conditions of the disaster, and the time elapsed since the disaster. Despite its reputation as the ultimate provider of identification, DNA profiling is neither a foolproof method of identification, nor is it always successful. Whilst the statistical accuracy of positive identification by DNA analysis is high, conditions must be favorable for a successful match to be made. There must be a reference sample for comparison, either from a close relative, or from belongings of the suspected victim. The remains recovered must be of good enough condition to enable a sample of DNA to be taken; this can depend on the type of remains available (blood, soft tissue, or bone for example), the level of degradation of remains, time lapsed since the disaster (DNA from different materials degrades at different rates – saliva degrades more quickly than blood, which degrades more quickly than bone and so on), and other environmental conditions. In addition, there must be the technical and logistical expertise and facilities, money, and political will to undertake the analysis. This political will depends not only on social norms and values of a given society, but also on the assessed social ‘value’ of the deceased. Even with the highest level of funding, facilities, expertise, and political will, identification by DNA profiling may not be possible: to date (September 2013) over 40% of the nearly 22 000 pieces of human remains recovered following 9/11 remain unidentified (representing over 1100 victims) (NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2013).
Table 1
Different Types of DNA Profiling in DVI DNA profiling for genetic identification works by comparing sets of information within certain sections of the DNA to look for a match. Using polymerase chain reaction techniques, laboratories are able to extract and make copies of minute amounts of DNA information that show high variability between populations, or DNA ‘markers,’ that are useful molecular identifiers. The most common used for identification are short tandem repeat markers, although single nucleotide polymorphism markers may also be used. In DVI cases, the profiling is primarily of DNA markers found either in nuclear DNA or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The relative advantages and disadvantages of either type are outlined in Table 1. For a more comprehensive outline of the science of DNA profiling for forensic use, please refer to Zietkiewicz et al. (2012). There is constant scientific research into new and improved methods of DNA profiling and genetic identification methods (such as the analysis of RNA, next generation genome sequencing); however, these have yet to be useful effectively in a disaster setting.
The Complexities of DVI Postdisaster management, including identification of the dead, is the responsibility of the country within which it occurs. However, a disaster, by definition, causes events that are either too big or too complex for individual countries to manage
Advantages and disadvantages of the profiling of nuclear DNA (nDNA) vs mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) following a disaster. nDNA
mtDNA
Cellular location
Nucleus of every human cell except red blood cells.
Mode of inheritance Advantages in DVI
Mendelian Mendelian inheritance provides high level of statistical accuracy to identification. Flexibility of analysis methods: can be analyzed using STR markers or SNP markers. High mutation rate of STRs make them highly individualized and ideal for individual discrimination (the statistical probability of one STR frequency matching that of another individual is less than 1 in 1 billion). Low mutation rate of SNPs and their ability to be amplified from minute amounts of DNA makes them ideal in very degraded specimens. SNP analysis exhibits population variability and can therefore be useful in assessing ethnicity. Subject to degradation from environmental conditions or extraction techniques – therefore require well preserved tissue samples and optimal environmental conditions for successful analysis. SNPs can be difficult to assess in mixed samples as is common in disasters. Population variability must be known prior to analysis for accurate profiling.
Cytoplasm of mitochondria – structures within cells that convert energy. Matrilineal Matrilineal inheritance means any maternal relative can be used as a reference sample – useful therefore where insufficient information is available within the nucleus, such as very degraded specimens, or where only certain relatives are available for comparison. Less susceptible to degradation from environmental conditions or extraction techniques: Useful in very degraded remains or where only matrilineal identification is needed (e.g., in excluding unrelated individuals.
Disadvantages in DVI
Less statistically accurate identification due to matrilineal inheritance and cellular location only within the mitochondria.
STR, short tandem report; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism. Summarized from Zietkiewicz, E., Witt, M., Daca, P., Zebracka-Gala, J., Goniewicz, M., Jarzab, B., Witt, M., 2012. Current genetic methodologies in the identification of disaster victims and in forensic analysis. Journal of Applied Genetics 53 (1), 41–60.
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
alone. They are by nature outside the norm and often chaotic, and the management of the dead in such a context is an incredibly complex undertaking. Moreover, in our increasingly connected world, where media are available 24 h a day across the globe, disasters have both a local and global dimension. They become environments with an array of actors operating within them: police, military, government, forensic services, prosecutors, family, survivors, media, and NGOs for example. In addition, disasters often result in complex identification conditions, where bodies are severely damaged, fragmented and degraded by fire, water, or other environmental conditions. Remains of one person may be mixed with those of another, and it is not unknown in manmade disasters such as bombings, for remains of the perpetrators to be mixed with those of the victims. In such conditions, traditional methods of identification such as odontology or visual recognition are often unsuccessful and other methods are therefore required to enable positive identification of human remains. The use of genetic profiling is increasingly relied upon in these difficult circumstances. Where other methods are inconclusive or completely useless, DNA profiling of one form or another can provide some indication as to positive identification of remains. Against this backdrop, the assumed primacy of genetic modes of identification can be problematic, because of its potential to clash with sociocultural norms and practices. Moreover, its use can cause conflicts within existing systems of power, knowledge, and governance. Often the most catastrophic disasters, particularly natural ones, occur in developing nations; their poor infrastructure and lack of logistical support, expertise, or money to undertake the necessary interventions makes the situation all the more devastating, and they may become reliant on intervening powers who offer support. These intervening authorities may provide consultation on the best way to manage the postdisaster situation, or, in some cases, they may take over its management. In many cases, several organizations will offer support, causing confusion and potential conflicts that invariably compromise effective action. In these cases, deciding upon appropriate interventions becomes all the more complex. At present no accepted international standards exist on DVI, although many organizations have issued guidelines (e.g., the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, the Pan American Health Organization, the US National Institute of Justice, the Association of Chief Police Officers in the United Kingdom, and many others besides). Although these guidelines mostly conform with one another, they vary in certain details, and the presence of so many different guidelines produces its own problems. Add to that the fact that not all nations necessarily adhere to Western scientific modes of understanding, where identity is biologically expressed through genes, and where individual identification and burial is the most pressing issue in dealing with the dead. The use of DNA profiling in DVI begs questions of place and authority. In particular, the concept of authority and the intervention of external agencies that determine the ‘correct’ approach to postdisaster management, along with the place of the ‘expert’ should be questioned, because those considered expert in one world may be very far from it in another place and social landscape.
947
Why Do We Need to Manage the Dead? Following a disaster, appropriate management of the dead may become impossible in the struggle to regain control and reestablish stability, particularly where external agencies become involved with their own particular ideas of ‘appropriate’ postdisaster management. A disaster causes massive disruption in the social fabric of everyday life, throwing communities into chaos and disorder. People often live in a state of stress and panic, both individual and collective, and their lives need to be reordered and their worlds repaired for them to feel secure again. Order must be restored as quickly as possible. A failure to take swift action in managing the disaster invariably causes more problems and can cause further turmoil. The situation in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina is an example of what happens when immediate action to manage the situation is not taken – moral and social chaos. For a government or other authority to remain in control it must repair the ruptured cosmos whilst managing the increasingly globalized networks of people involved in the postdisaster management; gaining trust and confidence from its population to do this is imperative to prevent further disorder and chaos. Controlling the treatment of the dead, and effecting identification efforts as early as possible is often central to the process of order reconstruction. Identification of the dead brings them back into the control of the state, through a reassertion of control and order (Wagner, 2008). DNA profiling is an increasingly popular tool in this effort. Its use, or refusal, can support or negate the legitimacy of power and cultural or social ideologies of a society and its governing body; it can consequently be used to reinforce power mechanisms and morality ideals within society (Verdery, 1999). But who decides what kind of management is appropriate and how it should be conducted? And what effect does the choice of DVI by DNA analysis have on the wider community particularly when it is not a native technology?
Critiques of the Use of Genetic Profiling in DVI: Social and Scientific Definitions of Identity Whilst studies in epigenetics have influenced scientific debates in recent years, encouraging them to explore the complexity of both behavior and identity as multifaceted and neither solely genetically nor solely socially located (see Carey, 2012), lay discourses have yet to embrace these complexities (Prainsack et al., 2014). Western media coverage and public discourse still favors a primarily essentialist notion of identity related to the genes (Dar-Nimrod and Heine, 2011); in this popular discourse, DNA analysis has attained the status of being the ultimate provider of ‘truth’ and identity for human remains. This is based on the assumption that identity is best assessed biologically. However, this assessment is based on a knowledge system based in Western postenlightenment scientific discourse, which, as with any knowledge system, is itself a product of the sociocultural environment and historical period within which it was born (Finkler, 2000). Because of these lay beliefs, in the Western world, identification by DNA profiling is viewed as the only appropriate means of identification of human remains following a disaster.
948
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
Identification by DNA profiling, based solely on physical remains, suggests that identity is inextricably bound to the skeleton and located at the cellular level, and negates identifications produced more socially; through events, or by specific individuals within a community, such as spirit mediums, local healers, doctors, or others who may usually be involved in some places. The conflicts between different systems of knowledge related to identification comes to the fore in DVI when local forms of social identification may be undermined due to the many agencies from differing nations that are often involved. Identities are complexly intertwined presentations of biological, cultural, and social systems, which interact in different ways. How these systems interact and take preference over each other is little understood, and the impact of using one system over another – both on identity and on events beyond the act of identification – is rarely discussed. The use of genetic profiling in DVI accompanies an assumption that individual identification and repatriation of remains is a central component of the postdisaster management process. Interpol, for example, asserts that identification of remains is ‘a basic human right’ (Interpol, 2009). Indeed, many people believe it is. However, there exists no directive to this end: neither the UN, nor any other international governing body has established declarations on this issue, and the legal status of remains depends upon the state from which they come. In many societies collective treatment is as legitimate, socially and legally, as individual identification, and even where individual identity is desired, DNA profiling or other genetic means may not be the most socially appropriate technology – other, less statistically accurate, scientifically based, or internationally respected methods may be preferred. In TimorLeste, for example, identification has been conducted for many years by spirit mediums. The identifications they produce may not be genetically accurate, but they are socially accepted and adhered to. Meanwhile in Cambodia, identity relates not to the skeleton, but to the spirit, and therefore, the actual remains of a person are not necessary for proper funeral rites to be enacted. Over 1 million anonymous remains are scattered across the country following the Khmer Rouge genocide of 1975–79, and cause no social discomfort. Interventions and assistance are often a necessary part of any postdisaster landscape. Many disasters occur in developing nations, which often lack the infrastructure, expertise, and money, to conduct extensive identification efforts. However, all interventions have social impacts. With DVI there are many questions to be asked of management of the dead, particularly related to identification efforts and specifically genetic identification efforts. Who has the legal authority over the bodies? Whose dead have priority? Should remains stay within the country or can they be transported elsewhere? How should the dead be stored? How much of a body constitutes a person? Who can manage the dead? What result will improper management have on the dead and the living (e.g., dead intervening in lives of living, etc)? How is identity understood? Who can establish this identity? How does the identity given reflect power and control structures? How does identification by DNA profiling affect, or interfere with, identity by other means? What effect can its prescription have on people? And where identification by DNA undermines traditional modes of identification, and the
authority of those who provide it (e.g., monks, spirit mediums, and doctors) how does this affect wider social stability of a locale? What is the actual ability of the managing organization to undertake identification efforts? What result will DNA profiling have in the long term (e.g., on expectations of the people involved)? When do identification efforts end? At what risk is forensic identification enforced at the cost of undermining local social systems and systems of rule? What is the potential effect of undermining these integral structures of stability and order in a society that has already undergone so much disruption and rupture?
Sociocultural Differences in the Treatment of Human Remains and Dead Bodies The use of genetics in DVI must also be considered in relation to appropriate treatment of the dead. Most societies have strict norms regarding treatment and management of the dead, and breaking these norms can become one of the factors contributing to social unrest. In different cultural situations, belief systems on how the dead are to be treated, and the consequences of ignoring these, vary significantly from Western norms. Following the appropriate norms is imperative in ensuring the fate of the dead; to be able to progress to the next life in Hindu and Buddhism; to ascend to heaven in Christianity; and to lay at peace across the world. In Cambodia, lay ritual specialists work alongside Buddhist monks to free the spirit from the body and allow it to progress through its lives; the physical presence of the corpse is however, not necessary for this to be successful. Religious norms in Muslim and Jewish cultures usually provide that bodies be buried within 24 h, and the body should be buried in as much entirety as possible – the taking of samples for DNA analysis may be of some discomfort in both these cases if the sampling method is destructive (removal of soft flesh, teeth, or pieces of bones, for example). In the Comoros only men can have contact with the dead; in Tibet it is only members of the kin group within which they belong. In cases where (usually Western) experts take samples for DNA analysis, this rule is broken. In parts of Micronesia, to speak someone’s name after death brings misfortune to the living (Dernbach, 2005); how then does forensic, individual identification of physical human remains, where the name must be spoken, affect the community in such a case? In most cultures, strict taboos dictate appropriate food, social interactions, and clothing to be used by those managing the dead and for the dead themselves, but it is unlikely DNA identification methods can take these into account in the chaotic and stressful postdisaster environment. Even the process of identification can be distressing and may conflict with sociocultural norms and expectations. Whilst in some cases taking a sample for DNA profiling from human remains may be straight forward and easily collectible (blood or saliva, for example), due to the calamitous nature of many disasters, taking a sample for DVI may require removal of more substantial parts of the remains, such as pieces of soft flesh, teeth extracted from the head, or pieces of bone sawn from the rest of the skeleton. In such cases taking a sample is a destructive process, involving the removal, and destroying, of (albeit a small) part of the corpse. In some cases, to get at
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification the bone requires first the removal of the flesh; what then happens to the removed flesh? What implications do these treatments have for people who require as much integrity of the body as possible? When forensic identification efforts of the missing from Saddam Hussein’s regime first began in Iraq in 2008, the Iraqi authorities initially attempted to demand that all skeletal samples taken for DNA analysis be returned so that the identified bodies could be buried intact. Of course this was not possible (the bone is ground up in the profiling process), and caused stagnation in the identification process for some years, with the authorities refusing to allow human tissue to leave the country, and yet not having the facilities or expertise to undertake the analysis themselves.
So Why Use DNA Profiling? The use of DNA profiling in DVI is almost always presented in terms of humanitarian relief and human rights. Individual identification of the dead following a disaster is not, however, an established international human right or legal necessity, and no conventions have yet been created which deem it such. The legal status and rights of the dead vary between jurisdictions and depending on circumstances, and where international conventions do exist on the treatment of mass dead (the Geneva conventions, for example), these relate specifically to the dead resulting from war or conflict. However, individual, positive identification of the dead may be necessary for many reasons, and not only to provide the assumed closure to family members and societies: establishment of death may be legally required for the production of death certificates, inheritance rights, access to bank accounts, pensions, and other legal actions. Individual identification of the deceased can be necessary to establish those who are still missing. It may be required in order to identify perpetrators. It may be used to give statistical figures for reporting of scale and severity of the disaster, or to provide emotive capital to political statements, which may be used to support international action, even potential military interventions. In the case of a disaster, DNA profiling is often the most accurate mode of providing these necessary positive identifications. But its increasing use relates not only to its accuracy over other methods, but also to other social mechanisms in play across the globe: local, national and international pressures (real or imagined) that influence action, and the individual and collective benefits that result from undertaking such actions. That which is undertaken under the auspices of being ‘for the common good,’ or being the ‘right’ mode of approach, often functions in a much more pragmatic way for those involved (be it postdisaster or in longer term humanitarian aims); it is harnessed as a political tool and as a means of gaining social and cultural capital for all those involved, from individuals conducting the analysis to governments funding it. The use of DNA analysis in the identification of bodies sits within the array of political tools open to manipulation, enabling the harnessing of their symbolic power, the accumulation of social and political capital for those involved in DNA analysis, and, through the handling of these factors, a means of exercising control over a population and acting in the global community.
949
This is especially true after a disaster, when the social fabric of everyday life is ruptured; not only in the time and place where the event occurred, but in the case of manmade disasters such as terrorist attacks, across the globe as a whole. The very ambiguous nature of bodies – their silence – enables manipulation by one or many voices, and an imbuing of power that cannot be expressed but which is strongly emotive and affective. Their management is therefore paramount postdisaster in order to restore and maintain order following an event that has disrupted life – they possess a form of biopower that can be manipulated by those in authority and provide social and political capital to those involved in their management. By contrast, the disregard of the dead can cause the loss of control and power. In the increasingly globalized world we live in, our social networks extend beyond our local neighborhoods to include the international community, and the groups with which we engage are ever increasing. Governments and large international organizations participate in these networks too, and are as subject to the social forces at play as are individuals. Disasters that are often entirely localized in their physical effects become globalized in their social impact, and the accumulation of capital, both social and political, affects actions across all these networks. The use of this highly advanced technology is prestigious; both for the individuals involved in taking samples and doing the analysis, and for the agency that undertakes it, or orders it undertaken, or manage its use postdisaster. In many cases it may not really matter whether the technology is used or not, nor its actual success rate. The simple declaration of intention may be enough to both provide social capital and control a chaotic and demanding population. It is not just the technology that is used in this way. The bodies themselves are also valuable, and can be manipulated as tools of power and capital. Relations with the dead express ideological and moral norms within a society, but they can also expose aspirations (Verdery, 1999). They also have relative worth. The speed with which bodies are collected and identification efforts begin, particularly expensive, technologically advanced techniques such as DNA analysis, indicates the relative value of the dead to the agencies involved: that value often depends on the narrative within which the disaster occurs and how this can be manipulated to gain social capital and political power, both nationally and internationally. The reality of assistance in international disaster situations is often that governments offer it primarily in order to support the victims of their own country and recover their own dead. This can lead to increasingly difficult situations and conflicts as experts from many nations attempt to recover and identify their dead. It also leads to unequal treatment of the dead from nations who do not have the means or expertise to enact identification efforts even should they wish to. Following the 2004 tsunami in Asia, over 30 international DVI teams worked on identification efforts: teams from Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Singapore, and many other nations, worked on recovering and identifying their own dead (Beauthier et al., 2009; Lessig et al., 2006). The number of teams with different modes of working and different priorities led to many issues: bodies went missing, management conflicts caused delays in work, and unequal treatment of the dead was manifested in full sight.
950
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
Whilst identification efforts raged for Western victims, the dead from Asia were rapidly buried in mass graves. Identification efforts other than visual means only extended to these dead when the bodies started to decompose, and visual analysis could no longer distinguish identity or ethnicity. Even within the same nation, bodies have relative worth: a comparison of the identification efforts in the United States following 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina illustrate this: identification efforts for the ‘national heroes’ of 9/11 began within 1 month of the event, and unlimited funds have been pledged to identification, which will continue ad infinitum; in the case of Hurricane Katrina meanwhile, it took over 4 months for the use of DNA analysis to be agreed, and even then only $13 million of funding was provided (Wagner, 2008). The value of the living is also reflected in the treatment of the dead and related identification efforts: the dead of those who are valued are managed in culturally respectful ways; those who are not valued, are not.
Conclusion The use of genetic modes of identification has become an expected technological intervention in the identification of disaster victims. Where traditional modes of identification fall short, DNA profiling offers a statistically accurate means of providing positive identification of remains and of reassociating body parts. However, its use is not without problems, including logistical, practical, and social implications, and these should be considered in its application.
See also: Bioethics: Genetics and Genomics; Bioethics: Philosophical Aspects; Genetics and Anthropology; Genetics and Forensics; Genetics and Indigenous Communities: Ethical Issues; Genetics and Sociology; Genetics: Legal Aspects; Genomics, Ethical Issues In; Indigenous Knowledge: Science and Technology Studies; International Law and Treaties; Norms in Science; Race: Genetic Aspects.
Carey, N., 2012. The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease and Inheritance. Icon Books Limited, London. Dar-Nimrod, I., Heine, S.J., 2011. Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin 137 (5), 800–818. Dernbach, K.B., 2005. Spirits of the hereafter: death, funerary possession, and the afterlife in Chuuk, Micronesia. Ethnology 44 (2), 99–123. Finkler, K., 2000. Experiencing the New Genetics: Family and Kinship on the Medical Frontier. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gonzales, A.R., Henke, T.A., Hart, S.V., 2005. Mass Fatality Incidents: A Guide for Human Forensic Identification (NIJ Special Report). US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Interpol, 2009. Disaster Victim Identification Guide (New). Interpol, Lyon, France. Lessig, R., Grundmann, C., Dahlmann, F., Rötzscher, K., Edelmann, J., Schneider, P.M., 2006. Review article: tsunami 2004 – a review of one year of continuous forensic medical work for victim identification. EXCLI Journal 5, 128–139. Lessig, R., Rothschild, M., 2011. International standards in cases of mass Disaster Victim Identification. Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology 8 (2), 197–199. Morse, A., 1998. Searching for the Holy Grail: the human genome project and its implications. Journal of Law and Health 13, 219–256. Pan American Health Organization, 2009. Management of Dead Bodies after Disasters – a Field Manual for First Responders. PAHO, Washington, DC. Petrovich-Steger, M., 2009. Anatomising conflict – accommodating human remains. In: McDonald, M., Helen, L. (Eds.), Social Bodies. Berghahn, London. Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., Werner-Felmayer, G., 2014. Geneticising life: a collective Endeavour and its challenges. In: Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., Werner-Felmayer, G. (Eds.), Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham (Chapter 1). Prinz, M., 2007. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification. Forensic Science International: Genetics 1, 3–12. Resnick, D.B., 1999. The human genome diversity project: ethical problems and solutions. Politics and Life Sciences 18, 15–23. Tidball-Binz, M., 2007. Managing the dead in catastrophes: guiding principles and practical recommendations for first responders. International Review of the Red Cross 89, 421–442. Verdery, K., 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. Columbia University Press, New York. Wagner, S., 2008. To Know Where He Lies: DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica’s Missing. University of California Press, Berkeley. Zietkiewicz, E., Witt, M., Daca, P., Zebracka-Gala, J., Goniewicz, M., Jarzab, B., Witt, M., 2012. Current genetic methodologies in the identification of disaster victims and in forensic analysis. Journal of Applied Genetics 53 (1), 41–60.
Relevant Websites
Bibliography Association of Chief Police Officers, 2011. Guidance on Disaster Victim Identification. National Policing Improvement Agency, London. Beauthier, J., De Valck, E., Lefevre, P., De Winne, J., 2009. Mass disaster victim identification: the tsunami experience. The Open Forensic Science Journal 2, 54–62.
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/ – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2013. What We Do – Disaster Management. http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Forensics/DVI – Interpol, 2013. Interpol Expertise – Forensics. http://www.nyc.gov/ – NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2013. World Trade Center Operational Statistics. http://www.swgdvi.org/ – The Scientific Working Group on Disaster Victim Identification (SWGDVI), 2013.
Abstract The use of genetic methods (specifically DNA profiling) is increasingly popular in the identification of disaster victims. Where traditional modes of identification fall short, DNA profiling offers a statistically accurate means of providing positive identification of remains and of reassociating body parts. However, its use is not without problems, including logistical, practical, and social implications. Different cultures have different modes of identification, which may not be scientifically or biologically based, and DNA profiling may conflict with the strict norms and regulations related to treatment of the body after death.
The use of genetics in disaster victim identification (DVI) refers particularly to different methods of DNA profiling; it is one of a suite of methods, often used in conjunction with others, to provide positive, individual identification of human remains following a disaster. A disaster often produces conditions where human remains are degraded, fragmentary, and comingled; as such, the use of DNA is becoming increasingly relied upon to provide authoritative identification in preference over other, traditional, methods such as visual identification, fingerprint analysis, odontological comparison, and osteological analysis. DNA profiling evolved from the development of other modes of identification, such as the assessment of blood types to determine relatedness, within molecular biology. First commercially available in 1987, the use of DNA profiling as a means of individual identification has developed at a rapid pace over the past few decades. Until recently, it assumed a backseat to other methods of identification, however, due to scientific advances in profiling techniques, combined with increased media coverage and widely publicized successful identification efforts across the globe, and its inclusion in popular media and television shows, it has attained the status among many experts and publics alike as being the ultimate provider of identity. As such it has become almost synonymous with the word ‘identification’ in the context of DVI; in postdisaster management its use has come to represent responsible, well-ordered, and capable authority; to use DNA analysis in victim identification has become normalized as both a universally appropriate and superior technological intervention. It is therefore often an expected intervention in disaster settings, where many people view identification efforts as central to the process of responsible postdisaster management.
What Is a Disaster? A disaster is “a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, and economic or environmental losses that exceed the community’s or society’s ability to cope using its own resources” (IFRC, 2013). These calamitous events may be natural (such as earthquakes, hurricanes, fires, floods, or other environmentally based events), or of human origin
International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 9
(air disasters or terrorist actions for example), but by definition, they cause events that require external assistance to manage. One of these events is often mass death. Management of the dead is one of the essential actions following a disaster, alongside care for survivors and reestablishment of basic services. It is a crucial aspect of reasserting control and order on a society and people thrown into chaos and disorder by the disaster event. In many (although by no means all) instances, this management includes individual identification of the deceased, and repatriation of the remains. Genetic profiling is becoming an increasingly popular mode of enabling this. Recent examples of disasters that have employed genetic means of identification include 9/11 (2792 deaths); the Asian tsunami of 2004 (over 220 000 deaths); Hurricane Katrina (1836 deaths); the 2009 Victorian bushfires in Australia (173 deaths); and the 2011 Japanese earthquake (over 16 000 deaths).
How Are Genetic Methods Used in DVI? Whilst the forensic use of genetics is vast, ranging from paternity testing to perpetrator identification, in DVI it is primarily used in two contexts: to provide positive identification of recovered human remains, and to reassociate body parts with one another (to provide as complete a body for identification and repatriation as possible). In the latter case, particularly in disaster situations, the effectiveness of DNA profiling is without comparison as a mode of analysis. In addition, where appropriate, the use of DNA analysis may be used within a disaster to assess perpetrator identification. The use of DNA profiling enables the matching of one person to another or of one body part to another, through the matching of particular sequences of information within the strands of DNA contained within biological remains. Although all human beings share 99.9% of their genetic information with other members of their species, the remaining 0.1% are unique for every individual (except between monozygotic twins and multiples). It is this variation that enables DNA profiling to be so accurate in its identification (see Genetics and Forensics). The specific loci of investigation within the DNA depends upon the method chosen for analysis, and this method depends upon many factors: the aims of the
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.82066-8
945
946
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
investigation (identification or body part reassociation for example), the condition of remains, the type of biological material available (teeth, blood, or saliva for example), the environmental conditions of the disaster, and the time elapsed since the disaster. Despite its reputation as the ultimate provider of identification, DNA profiling is neither a foolproof method of identification, nor is it always successful. Whilst the statistical accuracy of positive identification by DNA analysis is high, conditions must be favorable for a successful match to be made. There must be a reference sample for comparison, either from a close relative, or from belongings of the suspected victim. The remains recovered must be of good enough condition to enable a sample of DNA to be taken; this can depend on the type of remains available (blood, soft tissue, or bone for example), the level of degradation of remains, time lapsed since the disaster (DNA from different materials degrades at different rates – saliva degrades more quickly than blood, which degrades more quickly than bone and so on), and other environmental conditions. In addition, there must be the technical and logistical expertise and facilities, money, and political will to undertake the analysis. This political will depends not only on social norms and values of a given society, but also on the assessed social ‘value’ of the deceased. Even with the highest level of funding, facilities, expertise, and political will, identification by DNA profiling may not be possible: to date (September 2013) over 40% of the nearly 22 000 pieces of human remains recovered following 9/11 remain unidentified (representing over 1100 victims) (NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2013).
Table 1
Different Types of DNA Profiling in DVI DNA profiling for genetic identification works by comparing sets of information within certain sections of the DNA to look for a match. Using polymerase chain reaction techniques, laboratories are able to extract and make copies of minute amounts of DNA information that show high variability between populations, or DNA ‘markers,’ that are useful molecular identifiers. The most common used for identification are short tandem repeat markers, although single nucleotide polymorphism markers may also be used. In DVI cases, the profiling is primarily of DNA markers found either in nuclear DNA or mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). The relative advantages and disadvantages of either type are outlined in Table 1. For a more comprehensive outline of the science of DNA profiling for forensic use, please refer to Zietkiewicz et al. (2012). There is constant scientific research into new and improved methods of DNA profiling and genetic identification methods (such as the analysis of RNA, next generation genome sequencing); however, these have yet to be useful effectively in a disaster setting.
The Complexities of DVI Postdisaster management, including identification of the dead, is the responsibility of the country within which it occurs. However, a disaster, by definition, causes events that are either too big or too complex for individual countries to manage
Advantages and disadvantages of the profiling of nuclear DNA (nDNA) vs mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) following a disaster. nDNA
mtDNA
Cellular location
Nucleus of every human cell except red blood cells.
Mode of inheritance Advantages in DVI
Mendelian Mendelian inheritance provides high level of statistical accuracy to identification. Flexibility of analysis methods: can be analyzed using STR markers or SNP markers. High mutation rate of STRs make them highly individualized and ideal for individual discrimination (the statistical probability of one STR frequency matching that of another individual is less than 1 in 1 billion). Low mutation rate of SNPs and their ability to be amplified from minute amounts of DNA makes them ideal in very degraded specimens. SNP analysis exhibits population variability and can therefore be useful in assessing ethnicity. Subject to degradation from environmental conditions or extraction techniques – therefore require well preserved tissue samples and optimal environmental conditions for successful analysis. SNPs can be difficult to assess in mixed samples as is common in disasters. Population variability must be known prior to analysis for accurate profiling.
Cytoplasm of mitochondria – structures within cells that convert energy. Matrilineal Matrilineal inheritance means any maternal relative can be used as a reference sample – useful therefore where insufficient information is available within the nucleus, such as very degraded specimens, or where only certain relatives are available for comparison. Less susceptible to degradation from environmental conditions or extraction techniques: Useful in very degraded remains or where only matrilineal identification is needed (e.g., in excluding unrelated individuals.
Disadvantages in DVI
Less statistically accurate identification due to matrilineal inheritance and cellular location only within the mitochondria.
STR, short tandem report; SNP, single nucleotide polymorphism. Summarized from Zietkiewicz, E., Witt, M., Daca, P., Zebracka-Gala, J., Goniewicz, M., Jarzab, B., Witt, M., 2012. Current genetic methodologies in the identification of disaster victims and in forensic analysis. Journal of Applied Genetics 53 (1), 41–60.
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
alone. They are by nature outside the norm and often chaotic, and the management of the dead in such a context is an incredibly complex undertaking. Moreover, in our increasingly connected world, where media are available 24 h a day across the globe, disasters have both a local and global dimension. They become environments with an array of actors operating within them: police, military, government, forensic services, prosecutors, family, survivors, media, and NGOs for example. In addition, disasters often result in complex identification conditions, where bodies are severely damaged, fragmented and degraded by fire, water, or other environmental conditions. Remains of one person may be mixed with those of another, and it is not unknown in manmade disasters such as bombings, for remains of the perpetrators to be mixed with those of the victims. In such conditions, traditional methods of identification such as odontology or visual recognition are often unsuccessful and other methods are therefore required to enable positive identification of human remains. The use of genetic profiling is increasingly relied upon in these difficult circumstances. Where other methods are inconclusive or completely useless, DNA profiling of one form or another can provide some indication as to positive identification of remains. Against this backdrop, the assumed primacy of genetic modes of identification can be problematic, because of its potential to clash with sociocultural norms and practices. Moreover, its use can cause conflicts within existing systems of power, knowledge, and governance. Often the most catastrophic disasters, particularly natural ones, occur in developing nations; their poor infrastructure and lack of logistical support, expertise, or money to undertake the necessary interventions makes the situation all the more devastating, and they may become reliant on intervening powers who offer support. These intervening authorities may provide consultation on the best way to manage the postdisaster situation, or, in some cases, they may take over its management. In many cases, several organizations will offer support, causing confusion and potential conflicts that invariably compromise effective action. In these cases, deciding upon appropriate interventions becomes all the more complex. At present no accepted international standards exist on DVI, although many organizations have issued guidelines (e.g., the International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpol, the Pan American Health Organization, the US National Institute of Justice, the Association of Chief Police Officers in the United Kingdom, and many others besides). Although these guidelines mostly conform with one another, they vary in certain details, and the presence of so many different guidelines produces its own problems. Add to that the fact that not all nations necessarily adhere to Western scientific modes of understanding, where identity is biologically expressed through genes, and where individual identification and burial is the most pressing issue in dealing with the dead. The use of DNA profiling in DVI begs questions of place and authority. In particular, the concept of authority and the intervention of external agencies that determine the ‘correct’ approach to postdisaster management, along with the place of the ‘expert’ should be questioned, because those considered expert in one world may be very far from it in another place and social landscape.
947
Why Do We Need to Manage the Dead? Following a disaster, appropriate management of the dead may become impossible in the struggle to regain control and reestablish stability, particularly where external agencies become involved with their own particular ideas of ‘appropriate’ postdisaster management. A disaster causes massive disruption in the social fabric of everyday life, throwing communities into chaos and disorder. People often live in a state of stress and panic, both individual and collective, and their lives need to be reordered and their worlds repaired for them to feel secure again. Order must be restored as quickly as possible. A failure to take swift action in managing the disaster invariably causes more problems and can cause further turmoil. The situation in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina is an example of what happens when immediate action to manage the situation is not taken – moral and social chaos. For a government or other authority to remain in control it must repair the ruptured cosmos whilst managing the increasingly globalized networks of people involved in the postdisaster management; gaining trust and confidence from its population to do this is imperative to prevent further disorder and chaos. Controlling the treatment of the dead, and effecting identification efforts as early as possible is often central to the process of order reconstruction. Identification of the dead brings them back into the control of the state, through a reassertion of control and order (Wagner, 2008). DNA profiling is an increasingly popular tool in this effort. Its use, or refusal, can support or negate the legitimacy of power and cultural or social ideologies of a society and its governing body; it can consequently be used to reinforce power mechanisms and morality ideals within society (Verdery, 1999). But who decides what kind of management is appropriate and how it should be conducted? And what effect does the choice of DVI by DNA analysis have on the wider community particularly when it is not a native technology?
Critiques of the Use of Genetic Profiling in DVI: Social and Scientific Definitions of Identity Whilst studies in epigenetics have influenced scientific debates in recent years, encouraging them to explore the complexity of both behavior and identity as multifaceted and neither solely genetically nor solely socially located (see Carey, 2012), lay discourses have yet to embrace these complexities (Prainsack et al., 2014). Western media coverage and public discourse still favors a primarily essentialist notion of identity related to the genes (Dar-Nimrod and Heine, 2011); in this popular discourse, DNA analysis has attained the status of being the ultimate provider of ‘truth’ and identity for human remains. This is based on the assumption that identity is best assessed biologically. However, this assessment is based on a knowledge system based in Western postenlightenment scientific discourse, which, as with any knowledge system, is itself a product of the sociocultural environment and historical period within which it was born (Finkler, 2000). Because of these lay beliefs, in the Western world, identification by DNA profiling is viewed as the only appropriate means of identification of human remains following a disaster.
948
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
Identification by DNA profiling, based solely on physical remains, suggests that identity is inextricably bound to the skeleton and located at the cellular level, and negates identifications produced more socially; through events, or by specific individuals within a community, such as spirit mediums, local healers, doctors, or others who may usually be involved in some places. The conflicts between different systems of knowledge related to identification comes to the fore in DVI when local forms of social identification may be undermined due to the many agencies from differing nations that are often involved. Identities are complexly intertwined presentations of biological, cultural, and social systems, which interact in different ways. How these systems interact and take preference over each other is little understood, and the impact of using one system over another – both on identity and on events beyond the act of identification – is rarely discussed. The use of genetic profiling in DVI accompanies an assumption that individual identification and repatriation of remains is a central component of the postdisaster management process. Interpol, for example, asserts that identification of remains is ‘a basic human right’ (Interpol, 2009). Indeed, many people believe it is. However, there exists no directive to this end: neither the UN, nor any other international governing body has established declarations on this issue, and the legal status of remains depends upon the state from which they come. In many societies collective treatment is as legitimate, socially and legally, as individual identification, and even where individual identity is desired, DNA profiling or other genetic means may not be the most socially appropriate technology – other, less statistically accurate, scientifically based, or internationally respected methods may be preferred. In TimorLeste, for example, identification has been conducted for many years by spirit mediums. The identifications they produce may not be genetically accurate, but they are socially accepted and adhered to. Meanwhile in Cambodia, identity relates not to the skeleton, but to the spirit, and therefore, the actual remains of a person are not necessary for proper funeral rites to be enacted. Over 1 million anonymous remains are scattered across the country following the Khmer Rouge genocide of 1975–79, and cause no social discomfort. Interventions and assistance are often a necessary part of any postdisaster landscape. Many disasters occur in developing nations, which often lack the infrastructure, expertise, and money, to conduct extensive identification efforts. However, all interventions have social impacts. With DVI there are many questions to be asked of management of the dead, particularly related to identification efforts and specifically genetic identification efforts. Who has the legal authority over the bodies? Whose dead have priority? Should remains stay within the country or can they be transported elsewhere? How should the dead be stored? How much of a body constitutes a person? Who can manage the dead? What result will improper management have on the dead and the living (e.g., dead intervening in lives of living, etc)? How is identity understood? Who can establish this identity? How does the identity given reflect power and control structures? How does identification by DNA profiling affect, or interfere with, identity by other means? What effect can its prescription have on people? And where identification by DNA undermines traditional modes of identification, and the
authority of those who provide it (e.g., monks, spirit mediums, and doctors) how does this affect wider social stability of a locale? What is the actual ability of the managing organization to undertake identification efforts? What result will DNA profiling have in the long term (e.g., on expectations of the people involved)? When do identification efforts end? At what risk is forensic identification enforced at the cost of undermining local social systems and systems of rule? What is the potential effect of undermining these integral structures of stability and order in a society that has already undergone so much disruption and rupture?
Sociocultural Differences in the Treatment of Human Remains and Dead Bodies The use of genetics in DVI must also be considered in relation to appropriate treatment of the dead. Most societies have strict norms regarding treatment and management of the dead, and breaking these norms can become one of the factors contributing to social unrest. In different cultural situations, belief systems on how the dead are to be treated, and the consequences of ignoring these, vary significantly from Western norms. Following the appropriate norms is imperative in ensuring the fate of the dead; to be able to progress to the next life in Hindu and Buddhism; to ascend to heaven in Christianity; and to lay at peace across the world. In Cambodia, lay ritual specialists work alongside Buddhist monks to free the spirit from the body and allow it to progress through its lives; the physical presence of the corpse is however, not necessary for this to be successful. Religious norms in Muslim and Jewish cultures usually provide that bodies be buried within 24 h, and the body should be buried in as much entirety as possible – the taking of samples for DNA analysis may be of some discomfort in both these cases if the sampling method is destructive (removal of soft flesh, teeth, or pieces of bones, for example). In the Comoros only men can have contact with the dead; in Tibet it is only members of the kin group within which they belong. In cases where (usually Western) experts take samples for DNA analysis, this rule is broken. In parts of Micronesia, to speak someone’s name after death brings misfortune to the living (Dernbach, 2005); how then does forensic, individual identification of physical human remains, where the name must be spoken, affect the community in such a case? In most cultures, strict taboos dictate appropriate food, social interactions, and clothing to be used by those managing the dead and for the dead themselves, but it is unlikely DNA identification methods can take these into account in the chaotic and stressful postdisaster environment. Even the process of identification can be distressing and may conflict with sociocultural norms and expectations. Whilst in some cases taking a sample for DNA profiling from human remains may be straight forward and easily collectible (blood or saliva, for example), due to the calamitous nature of many disasters, taking a sample for DVI may require removal of more substantial parts of the remains, such as pieces of soft flesh, teeth extracted from the head, or pieces of bone sawn from the rest of the skeleton. In such cases taking a sample is a destructive process, involving the removal, and destroying, of (albeit a small) part of the corpse. In some cases, to get at
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification the bone requires first the removal of the flesh; what then happens to the removed flesh? What implications do these treatments have for people who require as much integrity of the body as possible? When forensic identification efforts of the missing from Saddam Hussein’s regime first began in Iraq in 2008, the Iraqi authorities initially attempted to demand that all skeletal samples taken for DNA analysis be returned so that the identified bodies could be buried intact. Of course this was not possible (the bone is ground up in the profiling process), and caused stagnation in the identification process for some years, with the authorities refusing to allow human tissue to leave the country, and yet not having the facilities or expertise to undertake the analysis themselves.
So Why Use DNA Profiling? The use of DNA profiling in DVI is almost always presented in terms of humanitarian relief and human rights. Individual identification of the dead following a disaster is not, however, an established international human right or legal necessity, and no conventions have yet been created which deem it such. The legal status and rights of the dead vary between jurisdictions and depending on circumstances, and where international conventions do exist on the treatment of mass dead (the Geneva conventions, for example), these relate specifically to the dead resulting from war or conflict. However, individual, positive identification of the dead may be necessary for many reasons, and not only to provide the assumed closure to family members and societies: establishment of death may be legally required for the production of death certificates, inheritance rights, access to bank accounts, pensions, and other legal actions. Individual identification of the deceased can be necessary to establish those who are still missing. It may be required in order to identify perpetrators. It may be used to give statistical figures for reporting of scale and severity of the disaster, or to provide emotive capital to political statements, which may be used to support international action, even potential military interventions. In the case of a disaster, DNA profiling is often the most accurate mode of providing these necessary positive identifications. But its increasing use relates not only to its accuracy over other methods, but also to other social mechanisms in play across the globe: local, national and international pressures (real or imagined) that influence action, and the individual and collective benefits that result from undertaking such actions. That which is undertaken under the auspices of being ‘for the common good,’ or being the ‘right’ mode of approach, often functions in a much more pragmatic way for those involved (be it postdisaster or in longer term humanitarian aims); it is harnessed as a political tool and as a means of gaining social and cultural capital for all those involved, from individuals conducting the analysis to governments funding it. The use of DNA analysis in the identification of bodies sits within the array of political tools open to manipulation, enabling the harnessing of their symbolic power, the accumulation of social and political capital for those involved in DNA analysis, and, through the handling of these factors, a means of exercising control over a population and acting in the global community.
949
This is especially true after a disaster, when the social fabric of everyday life is ruptured; not only in the time and place where the event occurred, but in the case of manmade disasters such as terrorist attacks, across the globe as a whole. The very ambiguous nature of bodies – their silence – enables manipulation by one or many voices, and an imbuing of power that cannot be expressed but which is strongly emotive and affective. Their management is therefore paramount postdisaster in order to restore and maintain order following an event that has disrupted life – they possess a form of biopower that can be manipulated by those in authority and provide social and political capital to those involved in their management. By contrast, the disregard of the dead can cause the loss of control and power. In the increasingly globalized world we live in, our social networks extend beyond our local neighborhoods to include the international community, and the groups with which we engage are ever increasing. Governments and large international organizations participate in these networks too, and are as subject to the social forces at play as are individuals. Disasters that are often entirely localized in their physical effects become globalized in their social impact, and the accumulation of capital, both social and political, affects actions across all these networks. The use of this highly advanced technology is prestigious; both for the individuals involved in taking samples and doing the analysis, and for the agency that undertakes it, or orders it undertaken, or manage its use postdisaster. In many cases it may not really matter whether the technology is used or not, nor its actual success rate. The simple declaration of intention may be enough to both provide social capital and control a chaotic and demanding population. It is not just the technology that is used in this way. The bodies themselves are also valuable, and can be manipulated as tools of power and capital. Relations with the dead express ideological and moral norms within a society, but they can also expose aspirations (Verdery, 1999). They also have relative worth. The speed with which bodies are collected and identification efforts begin, particularly expensive, technologically advanced techniques such as DNA analysis, indicates the relative value of the dead to the agencies involved: that value often depends on the narrative within which the disaster occurs and how this can be manipulated to gain social capital and political power, both nationally and internationally. The reality of assistance in international disaster situations is often that governments offer it primarily in order to support the victims of their own country and recover their own dead. This can lead to increasingly difficult situations and conflicts as experts from many nations attempt to recover and identify their dead. It also leads to unequal treatment of the dead from nations who do not have the means or expertise to enact identification efforts even should they wish to. Following the 2004 tsunami in Asia, over 30 international DVI teams worked on identification efforts: teams from Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Singapore, and many other nations, worked on recovering and identifying their own dead (Beauthier et al., 2009; Lessig et al., 2006). The number of teams with different modes of working and different priorities led to many issues: bodies went missing, management conflicts caused delays in work, and unequal treatment of the dead was manifested in full sight.
950
Genetics and Disaster Victim Identification
Whilst identification efforts raged for Western victims, the dead from Asia were rapidly buried in mass graves. Identification efforts other than visual means only extended to these dead when the bodies started to decompose, and visual analysis could no longer distinguish identity or ethnicity. Even within the same nation, bodies have relative worth: a comparison of the identification efforts in the United States following 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina illustrate this: identification efforts for the ‘national heroes’ of 9/11 began within 1 month of the event, and unlimited funds have been pledged to identification, which will continue ad infinitum; in the case of Hurricane Katrina meanwhile, it took over 4 months for the use of DNA analysis to be agreed, and even then only $13 million of funding was provided (Wagner, 2008). The value of the living is also reflected in the treatment of the dead and related identification efforts: the dead of those who are valued are managed in culturally respectful ways; those who are not valued, are not.
Conclusion The use of genetic modes of identification has become an expected technological intervention in the identification of disaster victims. Where traditional modes of identification fall short, DNA profiling offers a statistically accurate means of providing positive identification of remains and of reassociating body parts. However, its use is not without problems, including logistical, practical, and social implications, and these should be considered in its application.
See also: Bioethics: Genetics and Genomics; Bioethics: Philosophical Aspects; Genetics and Anthropology; Genetics and Forensics; Genetics and Indigenous Communities: Ethical Issues; Genetics and Sociology; Genetics: Legal Aspects; Genomics, Ethical Issues In; Indigenous Knowledge: Science and Technology Studies; International Law and Treaties; Norms in Science; Race: Genetic Aspects.
Carey, N., 2012. The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease and Inheritance. Icon Books Limited, London. Dar-Nimrod, I., Heine, S.J., 2011. Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin 137 (5), 800–818. Dernbach, K.B., 2005. Spirits of the hereafter: death, funerary possession, and the afterlife in Chuuk, Micronesia. Ethnology 44 (2), 99–123. Finkler, K., 2000. Experiencing the New Genetics: Family and Kinship on the Medical Frontier. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Gonzales, A.R., Henke, T.A., Hart, S.V., 2005. Mass Fatality Incidents: A Guide for Human Forensic Identification (NIJ Special Report). US Department of Justice, Washington, DC. Interpol, 2009. Disaster Victim Identification Guide (New). Interpol, Lyon, France. Lessig, R., Grundmann, C., Dahlmann, F., Rötzscher, K., Edelmann, J., Schneider, P.M., 2006. Review article: tsunami 2004 – a review of one year of continuous forensic medical work for victim identification. EXCLI Journal 5, 128–139. Lessig, R., Rothschild, M., 2011. International standards in cases of mass Disaster Victim Identification. Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology 8 (2), 197–199. Morse, A., 1998. Searching for the Holy Grail: the human genome project and its implications. Journal of Law and Health 13, 219–256. Pan American Health Organization, 2009. Management of Dead Bodies after Disasters – a Field Manual for First Responders. PAHO, Washington, DC. Petrovich-Steger, M., 2009. Anatomising conflict – accommodating human remains. In: McDonald, M., Helen, L. (Eds.), Social Bodies. Berghahn, London. Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., Werner-Felmayer, G., 2014. Geneticising life: a collective Endeavour and its challenges. In: Prainsack, B., Schicktanz, S., Werner-Felmayer, G. (Eds.), Genetics as Social Practice: Transdisciplinary Views on Science and Culture. Ashgate Publishing Limited, Farnham (Chapter 1). Prinz, M., 2007. DNA Commission of the International Society for Forensic Genetics: recommendations regarding the role of forensic genetics for disaster victim identification. Forensic Science International: Genetics 1, 3–12. Resnick, D.B., 1999. The human genome diversity project: ethical problems and solutions. Politics and Life Sciences 18, 15–23. Tidball-Binz, M., 2007. Managing the dead in catastrophes: guiding principles and practical recommendations for first responders. International Review of the Red Cross 89, 421–442. Verdery, K., 1999. The Political Lives of Dead Bodies: Reburial and Postsocialist Change. Columbia University Press, New York. Wagner, S., 2008. To Know Where He Lies: DNA Technology and the Search for Srebrenica’s Missing. University of California Press, Berkeley. Zietkiewicz, E., Witt, M., Daca, P., Zebracka-Gala, J., Goniewicz, M., Jarzab, B., Witt, M., 2012. Current genetic methodologies in the identification of disaster victims and in forensic analysis. Journal of Applied Genetics 53 (1), 41–60.
Relevant Websites
Bibliography Association of Chief Police Officers, 2011. Guidance on Disaster Victim Identification. National Policing Improvement Agency, London. Beauthier, J., De Valck, E., Lefevre, P., De Winne, J., 2009. Mass disaster victim identification: the tsunami experience. The Open Forensic Science Journal 2, 54–62.
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disaster-management/ – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), 2013. What We Do – Disaster Management. http://www.interpol.int/INTERPOL-expertise/Forensics/DVI – Interpol, 2013. Interpol Expertise – Forensics. http://www.nyc.gov/ – NYC Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, 2013. World Trade Center Operational Statistics. http://www.swgdvi.org/ – The Scientific Working Group on Disaster Victim Identification (SWGDVI), 2013.