What is DNA? Deoxyribonucleic acid, better known as DNA, is the building block of all living things. Each living organism is made up of DNA that is completely unique to them and passed down through generations. The studying of DNA has developed into the practice of genetic testing. Genetic testing, also referred to as DNA testing, is a relatively new process of identifying certain patterns and changes in an individual’s DNA structure in order to determine certain traits. It has become a controversial topic due to the potential ethical and moral problems that arise from its existence. Technology in the twenty-first century has made a lot of things possible that were once thought nonviable, one of the marvels being genetic testing. This practice raises concerns in a variety of everyday settings, such as the workplace, schools, sports, and even our legal systems. Such risks raise the question on whether or not it should exist in today’s culture. 

 DNA’s Involvement Within Legal Systems

​DNA is a valuable resource used all throughout the legal systems. DNA has many uses in cases, including clearing the name of an individual or quite the opposite building a case against them. DNA testing and sampling is a relatively “new” thing and will continue to develop and be a valuable resource within law.

Beginning within a crime scene, after a crime scene gets closed off its is often swept for anything that might lead to a DNA match. This can mean something as simple as picking up a piece of hair, skin, bone off the floor, swabbing for blood samples, or any other bodily fluids. These samples are then bagged up to later be handed off to a lab to hopefully find a match. However, with this can come a lot of difficulties for example sample contamination, wrongly transporting and labeling of samples as well as misplacement of samples. This can cause evidence that is needed for a case to be lost or damaged simply due to a slight error. Contamination of samples could lead to difficulties later down the line and even completely ruin the sample and its validity.

​ Within the lab the goal of the investigators is to be able to make a match of the sample found from the crime scene. The samples could be a number of things including blood, hair, teeth/bones, human waste, and skin. These samples are then tested on by a process called capillary electrophoresis which removes the DNA from the given sample. The lab is then able to try and run it through a database (NDIS) to try and find a possible match. If a match is found this gives the investigators a great starting point when it comes to solving the case. If there is not a match within the database the investigators can keep the DNA and try and match it to suspects they find from other avenues including natural investigation which could help solidify they have the right suspect. The DNA nonetheless is not the only thing they need but it does give them a great start to begin to put the pieces together starting with investigating the new suspect.

Within the courtroom DNA is great evidence to have against a suspect. However, with that being said it is not necessarily case closing evidence in any situation. DNA needs to be backed by solid evidence to place the person at the place of the crime scene within a time period that is reasonable to when the crime was committed. This is because people are constantly losing hair, skin, and bodily fluids like sweat that could pin people as a suspect while they had nothing to do with the act. This being said, DNA is still extremely strong evidence and for a majority of the time it gives the investigators a big enough leap to put everything else together to get a case that incriminates the suspect.

​ In recent times, a number of cold cases that have never been solved, have been solved and reevaluated due to the new light that has been shined on them due to improvements in DNA testing/matching. This will bring closure to a lot of families as more and more cold cases begin to get reopened and reevaluated. On top of this many people who have been wrongly convicted of crimes that are currently serving their sentence have been getting cleared by DNA evidence that they were not responsible for the crime at hand. This is something that is actively going on and people are getting freed fairly often once they challenge their sentencing within court and asking for further DNA examination. This is mostly people who have been incarcerated since before the late 90’s and early 2000’s when DNA started to be more widespread within local legal systems. This really highlights the issues within the United States legal system as a number is starting to get put on people who are wrongly serving a sentence while the real perpetrator is free.

Another way that DNA is utilized that is completely unrelated to crime is maternity and paternity tests. This is vastly important within legal systems due to child support and other laws making a child’s parents economically responsible for the care of said child. Before DNA testing was around it was almost impossible to say with 100% certainty if a child was someone’s or not if there was any doubt. However, now it can be 100% certain. This is huge for the legal system because it is much harder to fight against DNA compared to previously when it was much harder to pin the mother and father.

​ As one can tell DNA can be a major contributor to the closing of cases and many other use cases after all the new method does have its downfalls. DNA testing comes with many legal and ethical issues and will continuously be talked about for as long as DNA testing is going on. However, with the constant advancements of technology and research DNA will continuously be a valuable resource to all aspects of legal systems.

Throughout the most recent years, the question of whether or not genetic testing should be used in the workplace has been an ongoing debate. Testing in the workplace can cause discrimination against an individual, singling them out in the process. A candidate should be employed solely for their qualifications and skills, and not what their genetic makeup consists of. Using genetic testing to determine legitimacy of potential hires should be illegal, as it will result in the unfair treatment of those with a mutation or genetic disorder.

In the workplace, genetic testing can play a huge role in racial discrimination. In the 1970s, employers used genetic screening primarily on African Americans to identify who amongst them carried the gene mutation for sickle cell anemia (NIH). Those who were found to carry the gene were denied jobs even if they were healthy and would never develop the disease (NIH). This is an unfair way of treating employees, especially considering the fact that those who were screened were often done so without their consent (NIH). Even if the person screened were to have the sickle cell disease, it is discriminatory and inhumane to assume that they cannot do the same things an able-bodied person could. As an employer, confidentiality of a person’s health is a simple right that should be extended to anyone regarding their genetic makeup. With the use of genetic screening, this right will be taken away, and make it much harder for those with health problems to find stable jobs. 

In addition, another huge part of the debate is whether or not genetic testing in the

the workplace goes against the rights of employees. This idea, given the information stated, is 100% accurate. Unless an employee states that he/she is unable to do their job because of their condition, it should be completely kept to the confidentiality between themselves and  the employer, and neither fired or not considered because of this fact alone. In society, the idea of freedom and the rights to our own individual opinions and choices but then push for things such as genetic testing be done in workplaces where it is completely unnecessary. That is the issue at hand, everything is so contradicting and one sided when it is beneficial to only one party in the situation, this case being able-bodied people. 

With that being said, it can be determined  that in the workplace many employers determine “fitness” by the physical makeup of an individual and use that as an excuse in the hiring process. In doing this, they call it “genetic testing”, they will cover up for what is actually is: Discrimination. Utilizing this “technique assists in employers finding a way to select certain candidates over the other based off of their appearance, which is wrong on their end for many reasons according to (blog.oup.com). However,  for the most part some people that may not show that they have a genetic disorder based on their physical makeup, may be the ones that actually have a genetic condition. Either way, this way of the hiring process is just wrong and should be banned. 

Not to mention, many people who do have a genetic condition feel like they have to work

harder than everyone else, in order to prove a point to their employer. Why should this be the case? A genetic disorder does not make anyone less capable of doing something that everyone else can, especially if they didn't mention that it would be hard for them to do. In the workplace, employers should take precautions to make sure that everyone feels safe and has equal rights. Genetic testing is not only harmful physically (causing mental effects), but it can also hurt the employer's/candidates mentally. Nobody should have to work under these conditions, especially not at the expense of being humiliated by people that they work with and their bosses.

Genetic testing has become an increasingly accepted tool for identifying potential health risks and genetic orders specifically in the area of the education system. However, the use of genetic testing in school systems has affected and will affect many individuals such as families, students, staff, administrators, and more. Some of the advantages have included early detection and intervention for learning disabilities, identification of students with disabilities, and personalized learning programs for students. Some of the disadvantages have included ethical concerns regarding genetic privacy and discrimination, the potential misuse of test results for tracking or labeling students, and unequal access to genetic testing. 

Stigma and discrimination: 

Identification of intellectual or cognitive disabilities is one possible outcome of genetic testing. Although this information can be useful in providing students with tailored assistance, it can also result in stigma and discrimination. Concerns exist regarding the way in which schools will use this data when deciding whether to admit students or provide special education services. The public release of test findings may result in stigmatization, isolation, and prejudice towards children who receive unfavorable results (Matthews, White, 2023). Students may begin to face scrutiny from other peers for having a disability or learning curve. Inevitably these results could lead to making educational disparities worse.

Why This Matters?

Genetic testing affects the education system in a variety of ways, positive and negative. While genetic testing can be used to detect early on signs of disabilities of students, genetic testing also tends to come at a cost that many families may not be able to afford. Although genetic testing in the education system can potentially lead to misuse of results or mislabeling of a disability, the test results can provide information to create proper programs for specific or general groups of students. Genetic testing wants to be used more consistently by families prior to the children going to school or even during the early education years and in doing so many of these disadvantages should be corrected. In the future, researchers have been developing genetic testing on the fetus before being born for families to have a potential understanding of any disabilities that one's child may have. Overall, while genetic testing has the potential to positively impact education by identifying learning disabilities early on, it is important to consider its potential negative effects on privacy and discrimination.

Genetic testing in relation to sports has been used throughout generations to do more harm than good to existing and aspiring athletes of various backgrounds. In new practices, it can be used to test athletes on their individual strengths and weaknesses to prevent injury. Participating in sports has been proven to boost physical and mental health, especially in youth. Not only is it a fool-proof way to stay in shape, but actively working together in groups is a good way to build long-lasting friendships, as well as provide kids with a sense of belonging. It is standard practice that sports are segregated by their biological gender for the purpose of creating an equal chance of winning to the given gender’s natural abilities. 

It was also found, in studies conducted by the SAGE handbook, that a majority of youth that identify as transgender abandon sports early because of the prejudice they face from the industry (Zowie Davy & others 2020). In the late 1900s, the editors of SAGE looked at 31 international and national sports organizations, all of which had regulations on the bodies of trans people, stating that there was a difference in identities based on pre-puberty and post-puberty gender transitions (Zowie Davy & others 2020).

Similarly, in 2003, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in the Statement of the Stockholm Consensus on Sex Reassignment in Sports required that athletes must have both external and internal reassignment (genital surgery and hormonal therapy) for at least two years to be admitted into their desired gender category (IOC 2003). This form of testing discriminates against any transgender individual that has not undergone these procedures, either due to timing or lack of resources, and categorizes them as less than those who have. 

It is easy to believe that for cisgender athletes, a world of required genetic testing will at most become a tedious activity. However, for some, their athletic career could be at risk. From 1968 to the year 1998, the IOC founded the Barr Body Test (IOC 2003). This test examines an athlete’s chromosomes to make sure that biologically, they are the gender they claim to be. If it was found that a female competitor carried the Y chromosome, she would be prohibited from competing as a woman. The issue with this is that with more research, it was found that there is a big difference between genetic and biological gender. For some women, they can carry the Y chromosome in their genetics their whole life and never know, the earliest case seen with Zdenka Koubkowa, a female runner who broke the world record, but then was diagnosed as intersexual (Helicon 2018). Similarly, Eva Klobukskowa, a sprinter in 1967, was found to have an extra male chromosome, and despite having female genitalia, was banned from competition (Helicon 2018). 

Genetic testing not only has the potential to discriminate against different genders, but also carries the risk of creating a bias on professional athletes based on their genetic abilities. Scientists examined about two-hundred genetic polymorphisms that directly have an effect on sports performance (David Varillas-Delgado 2022). Out of this two-hundred, over twenty of those had a chance of affecting the status of an elite athlete (David Varillas-Delgado 2022). This was not the first discovery of traits showing up in genetics, as we see in the 23AndMe tests, where an individual can send their DNA in to be tested to see if they are at risk of developing certain health conditions, or traits that could be passed down to their children. The risks with this in the sports world is, it could become a standard practice where it becomes routine to test athletes to see if they genetically are considered to be an “elite” athlete. 

In turn, this could drastically change the way people participate in competitive sports if genetic testing was ever made a mandatory protocol, which seems to be the direction our generation is going in. According to a survey study conducted by The Conversation, 72 elite athletes and 95 supporting staff in the United Kingdom Elite Sports were asked whether sports testing was prevalent in their field (Seema Patel 2017). 

Genetic testing in relation to sports will be used throughout generations to do more harm than good to existing and aspiring athletes, and should not be used as a requirement when it comes to competitions. Although the revelation could be used to prevent injury by getting to know each member’s own needs and capacities, the risk of causing more division across the community seems like a more likely end result when looking at past incidents that have already happened. This poses a threat to both transgender and cisgender athletes, whether through gender or genetic discrimination, forever changing the equity of the sports community.

It is crucial to weigh both the advantages and disadvantages of genetic testing before deciding whether to have it done. Though it has the potential to reveal essential information about a person's health, it also has the chance to divide certain groups by discriminating against their personal genetic makeup. When you look at the information gathered, there is a strong chance that legal systems, workplaces, education systems and sports have a high chance of being negatively impacted by its use. The data from each group show a significant risk of moral and ethical problems that should not be taken lightly. The twenty-first century is one that is known for its numerous technological advances, genetic testing being one of them. It would be beneficial to take precautions, such as implementing a counseling system specialized in genetics, to ensure people are properly educated on the subject before making a decision. This can ensure that as technology advances forward, each community is doing its best to make safe, inclusive decisions for all members that inhabit it. 

Authors

Kaylyn Ritter, Secondary Education/Mathematics, 2025, Genetics in the Education System

Samantha Poutre, Creative Writing & Communications, 2025, Genetics in Sports

Anonymous, Genetic Testing in the Legal Systems, Genetic Testing in the Workplace

References

Helicon, (2018). “Gender Testing in Sport: The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide - Credo Reference.” Gender Testing in Sport | The Hutchinson Unabridged Encyclopedia with Atlas and Weather Guide - Credo Reference, 2018, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/heliconhe/gender_testing_in_sport/0. 

IOC, (2006). “Trans Athletes and the Posthuman: A Critical Analysis of Trans Policies in Sports: The Sage Handbook of Global Sexualities - Credo Reference.” Trans Athletes and the Posthuman: A Critical Analysis of Trans Policies in Sports | The SAGE Handbook of Global Sexualities - Credo Reference, 16 July 2006, https://search.credoreference.com/content/entry/sageukoojy/trans_athletes_and_the_posthuman_a_critical_analysis_of_trans_policies_in_sports/0. 

Matthews, L., & White, N. (Eds.). (2023, January 11). Genomics of Education in Education: ELSI Concerns about Genomic Prediction in Educational Settings | ELSIhub. Elsihub.org.https://elsihub.org/collection/genomics-education-education-elsi-concerns-about-genomic-prediction-educational-settings. 

McNamee MJ;Müller A;van Hilvoorde I;Holm S; “Genetic Testing and Sports Medicine Ethics.” Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), U.S. National Library of Medicine, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19402739/. 

Natarajan, R. (2021, December 2). Addressing inequality in medical research: Texas Children’s and Baylor College of Medicine offer free genetic testing to low-income individuals | NRI. Texaschildrens.org. https://nri.texaschildrens.org/news/addressing-inequality-medical-research-texas-children%25E2%2580%2599s-and-baylor-college-medicine-offer-free-genetic-testing-low-income-individuals 

Patel , S., and Varley I., (2022). “Genetic Testing Is Being Used in Sport – but What Are the Consequences?” The Conversation, 11 Nov. 2022, https://theconversation.com/genetic-testing-is-being-used-in-sport-but-what-are-the-consequences-88604. 

Shero, J., van Dijk, W., Edwards, A. et al. The practical utility of genetic screening in school settings. npj Sci. Learn. 6, 12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-021-00090-y 

Sun, F., Oristaglio, J., Levy, S. E., Hakon Hakonarson, Sullivan, N., Fontanarosa, J., & Schoelles, K. M. (2015, June). Background. Nih.gov; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310466/ 

Varillas-Delgado, D., et al, (2022). “Genetics and Sports Performance: The Present and Future in the Identification of Talent for Sports Based on DNA Testing - European Journal of Applied Physiology.” SpringerLink, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 16 Apr. 2022, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00421-022-04945-z.  

FBI. (2016, June 8). CODIS and Ndis Fact Sheet. FBI. Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/dna-fingerprint-act-of-2005-expungement-policy/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet 

Maryville University. (2021, January 6). DNA profiling: How is it used in criminal justice? Maryville Online. Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://online.maryville.edu/blog/how-is-dna-profiling-used-to-solve-crimes/ 

Michaud, E. (2022, November 3). How to swab for DNA evidence. How to Swab for DNA Evidence. Retrieved March 9, 2023, from https://blog.puritanmedproducts.com/how-to-collect-dna-evidence