The issue of knowing about other people based on one subject's DNA has been known for for several years. For example, if a a woman has the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene (breast cancer), then so does her mother, sister(s) and daughter(s) because the gene is hereditary. Insurance companies can/have refused insurance coverage to the subject's relatives and the relatives have no idea why. Ethical issues have surfaced around the desire of the subject's relatives not wanting to know if they have a harmful, shared gene. If the subject tells her relatives abour her gene, then her relatives know that they have the gene. It's not like I told some them I broke my arm which only tells them a fact about me. The extension into law enforcement is an expected outcome. And there will be more. In my opinion, very few people understand the impact of human understanding of how life is constructed. The science is well understood, the engineering has just begun. We are taking conscious control of evolution, far past selective breeding and way past clones. cheers, bob On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote:

The point is that there are undiscussed evidentiary problems using relatives' DNA, hinging on the assumption that "blood relatives actually share blood", in layspeak.