European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 305–322 | Cite as

Transnational Exchange of Forensic DNA: Viability, Legitimacy, and Acceptability

  • Carole I. McCartney
  • Tim J. Wilson
  • Robin Williams


Forensic DNA profiling and databasing have become increasingly significant resources for criminal investigations in many jurisdictions. More recently, there have been attempts to recruit these technologies into the policing of cross-border organized crime, migration and terrorism. We examined the trajectory of one such attempt, the establishment and operationalisation of the Prüm Treaty within the European Union. We describe the way in which early technological considerations underlying DNA profile exchange, managed within law enforcement bureaucracies, have given way to a concern with broader societal issues and the necessity for a multifaceted scrutiny of this particular technolegal innovation. Central to this issue is the hybrid nature of exchange arrangements created as a result of the European Council Decision on Prüm (2008). The Prüm Treaty departs from the increasingly normalized framework for criminal justice cooperation, and at the same time, does not facilitate DNA exchange within a more traditional multinational instrument. We consider the significance and implications of the political decisions behind Prüm, as well as the consequences for the development of transnational DNA exchange in terms of three key issues: technical and scientific challenges (viability); legal challenges (legitimacy); and ethical and socioeconomic challenges (acceptability). Unless the Prüm structure is reformed, an important and promising initiative may remain encumbered with unresolved problems of legitimacy and acceptability. A lack of direct democratic involvement of many member states precluded the creation of consensus on issues such as privacy, data protection and due process issues, upon which legal and political regimes could then act.


DNA Prüm International exchange Transnational policing 


  1. Alain, M. (2001). The trapeze artists and the ground crew: police cooperation and intelligence exchange mechanisms in Europe and North America: A comparative empirical study. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy, 11(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. (2002). Trust and Police Cooperation. In M. Anderson & J. Apap (Eds.), Police and Justice Co-operation and the New European Borders. Kluwer: The Hague.Google Scholar
  3. Balzacq, T. (2006). From a Prum of 7 to a Prum of 8+: What are the implications?, Brussels: European parliament, directorate general internal policies.Google Scholar
  4. Balzacq, T., Bigo, D., Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2006). Security and the two-level game: the treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats, Centre for the European Policy Studies Working Document 234.Google Scholar
  5. Bigo, D., Carrera, S., and Guild, E. (2009). The Challenge project: final policy recommendations on the changing landscape of European liberty and security, Challenge Research Paper No.16, September.Google Scholar
  6. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2007). The forensic uses of bioinformation: ethical issues. available at:
  7. Block, L. (2007). International policing in Russia: police co-operation between the European union member states and the Russian federation. Policing and Society, 17(4), 367–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butler, J. M. (2006). Genetics and genomics of core STR loci used in human identity testing. Journal of Forensic Science, 51(2), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole, S. A. (2001). Suspect identities: a history of fingerprinting and criminal identification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. de Hert, P. (2005). Biometrics: legal issues and implications, Background Paper for the Institute of Prospective Technological Studies, Sevilla, (European Commission).Google Scholar
  11. de Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2006). Interoperability of police databases within the EU: An accountable political choice? International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 20(1/2), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. den Boer, M. (2002). Towards an Accountability Regime for an Emerging European Policing Governance. Policing and Society, 12(4), 275–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dickinson, J., & Pierce, A. (2006). Why the international exchange of DNA information is important. In Maximising the Opportunities for Sharing DNA Information across Europe. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  14. Emmanouilidis, J. A. (2007). Institutional consequences of differentiated integration. Bertelsmann Group for Policy Research, C.A.P. Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  15. Emmanouilidis, J. A. (2008). Differentiated Europe – Nine Recommendations, ELIAMEP Thesis, 1/2008, Athens.Google Scholar
  16. ENFSI (2007) DNA Expert Working Group of the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) (2007) Search Request Network Study: Final Report (accessed on 15 April 2007) from the previous ENSFI website:
  17. ENSFI (2009) DNA-Database Management Review and recommendations available at:
  18. European Data Protection Supervisor (2007). Opinion dated 19 December 2007 (EJ 10.4. 2008 pages C89/1-7).Google Scholar
  19. Fuster, G. G., De Hert, P., & Gutwirth, S. (2008). State of art report on the current scholarship on the law-security nexus in Europe, INEX FP7 Project (Oslo: PRIO).Google Scholar
  20. Geyer, F. (2008). Taking stock: databases and systems of information exchange in the area of freedom, security and justice, CHALLENGE Research Paper No.9, May.Google Scholar
  21. House of Lords European Union Committee. (2007). Prüm: An Effective Weapon Against Terrorism and Crime? HL Paper 90. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  22. House of Lords European Union Committee. (2008). Europol: coordinating the fight against serious and organised crime, HL Paper 183. London: The Stationery Office.Google Scholar
  23. INTERPOL (2008). Global DNA Profiling Survey, Key Facts. Available at
  24. Johnson, P., & Williams, R. (2007). Internationalizing new technologies of crime control: forensic DNA databasing and datasharing in the European union. Policing and Society, 17(2), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaye, D. H. (2010). The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kietz, D., & Maurer, A. (2006). From Schengen to Prüm: deeper integration through enhanced cooperation or signs of fragmentation in the EU?. Siftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Comments, 15, 1–5.Google Scholar
  27. Lacohee, H., Crane, S., and Phippen, A. (2006). Trustguide: Final Report, Trustguide.Google Scholar
  28. Loader, I. (2002). Policing, securitization and democratization in Europe. Criminal Justice, 2(2), 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luif, P. (2007). The treaty of Prum: a replay of Schengen?, EU-Consent Constructing European Network Paper, D38c.Google Scholar
  30. Lynch, M., Cole, S. A., McNally, R., & Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Fingerprinting. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Machado, H. and Silva, S. (2011). Portuguese forensic DNA database. In R. Hindmarsh & B. Prainsack (Eds.) Genetic Suspects: Global Governance of Forensic DNA Profiling and Databasing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. McCartney, C. (2006). Forensic Identification and Criminal Justice. Cullumpton: Willan.Google Scholar
  33. McCartney, C., Williams, R. and Wilson, T. (2010). The Future of Forensic Bioinformation, available at
  34. McGinley, M., & Parkes, R. (2007). Data protection in the EU's internal security cooperation: fundamental rights vs effective cooperation?, SWP Research Paper, May 2007 (RP 5).Google Scholar
  35. Neyroud, P., & Disley, E. (2008). Technology and policing: implications for fairness and legitimacy. Policing, 2(2), 226–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. O’Neill, O. (2002a). Autonomy and Trust in Bioethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. O’Neill, O. (2002b). A Question of Trust - The Reith Lectures 2002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Patyn, A., & Dierickx, K. (2010). Forensic DNA databases: genetic testing as societal choice. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 319–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Prainsack, B., & Toom, V. (2010). The Prum regime: situated dis/empowerment in transnational DNA profile exchange. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 1117–1135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) (2007). Dilemmas of Privacy and Surveillance.London: Royal Academy of Engineering.Google Scholar
  41. Sandler, T. (2006). Recognizing the limits to cooperation behind national borders: financing the control of transnational terrorism. In I. Kaul& P. Conceiçào (Eds.), The New public Finance: Responding To Global Challenges New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schneider, P. (2009). Expansion of the European standard set of DNA database loci - the current situation, Profiles in DNA, March. Available at
  43. Schuller, W. (2009). Interpol and international DNA exchange, first meeting of forensic specialists, organization of american states, Washington D.C. 24–25 September 2009.Google Scholar
  44. van der Beek, C. (2008). Exchange of DNA profiles by the treaty of Prüm. Presented at DNA Data Exchange in Europe conference, June 5–6, 2008. Available at
  45. Walker, N. (2008). The pattern of transnational policing. In T, Newburn (Ed.), Handbook of Policing, Cullumpton: Willan.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2007). Trace biometrics and criminal investigations. In Tim Newburn, T. Williamson & A. Wright (Eds.), Handbook of Criminal Investigation, Cullumpton: Willan.Google Scholar
  47. Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2008). Genetic Policing. Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar
  48. Wilson, T. (2009). Forensic science and the internationalisation of policing. In J. G. Fraser, & R. Williams (Eds.) Handbook of Forensic Science Cullompton: Willan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carole I. McCartney
    • 1
  • Tim J. Wilson
    • 2
  • Robin Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.Marie Curie Fellow, School of LawUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK
  2. 2.Northumbria University Centre for Forensic ScienceUniversity of NorthumbriaNorthumbriaUK

Personalised recommendations