Is this child mine? None of your business!

In the UK it is now illegal to obtain DNA samples for paternity testing without the consent of both parents. In fact recent legislation has even made it a criminal offence to take a tissue sample that is either left by, or derived from an individual in order to perform a DNA test, unless that is the individual has given prior consent, or the test is undertaken for a medical or legal investigative purpose. In support of these new powers under the Human Tissue Act, UK Courts may now impose a maximum three-year prison sentence if anyone holds or tests DNA samples without lawful authority. At the same time as this Draconian defence of human liberty was enacted, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced his advocacy for DNA technology, suggesting that there should be no limits imposed upon the number of samples held within the national DNA database (taken of course without consent).

So exactly where do these DNA database samples come from? The Criminal Justice Act currently entitles police to take and keep DNA samples (presently 3.6 million DNA profiles are held on a central database) from anyone arrested for an imprisonable offence, irrespective of whether they are subsequently charged or found guilty. Already more than 140,000 of those UK citizens who have been arrested and released without charge or caution are the proud owners of a criminal DNA profile on the National database. Tony’s feelings on the matter are suitably philosophical and clear, “if this is helping us track down murderers, rapists...then go for it... if you've got the technology then it's vital to use that technology to track people down." When asked if there should be any restrictions on the size of the database, Tony replied: "The number on the database should be the maximum number you can get."

However, on the subject of British men trying to establish if they are the fathers of dependent children, whether it is in order to claim visitation rights, to avoid paying unnecessary maintenance, or simply to see if they are raising the product of someone else’s fun and games, Tony’s message is very different. Simply put, fathers who conduct covert paternity tests on their children will face prosecution under Government legislation. In 2002 the Human Genetics Commission recommended that the ‘theft’ of a person's DNA, including the clandestine removal of a child's hair or saliva, should be regarded as a criminal offence, even if it were taken from a comb or a plastic spoon.

Such a proposal emerged from anxieties that increasing numbers of fathers in the USA were exploiting the growth of DNA testing services advertised on the Internet to undertake clandestine paternity checks without the consent of either the children or their mother. Naturally there were one or two red faces when some men discovered that they had been toiling to raise the seed of other men. In some cases there are huge sums involved, as in the relatively recent case of Media Magnate Steve Bing, who was alleged to have fathered a child outside of wedlock with actress Elizabeth Hurley. Paternity was ultimately established, despite a ‘non-exclusive relationship’. Guilt aside, Liz certainly didn’t deny playing the field, and it is not difficult to understand the origins of Mr.Bing’s reasonable doubts. In another related high profile case, Californian billionaire and octogenarian Kirk Kerkorian, fought a recent claim from former wife and tennis player Lisa Bonder over claimed child maintenance payments of £223,000 a month for four-year-old Kira. An expensive pre-school education for sure, not to mention a flattering tribute to the enduring fertility of Mr. Kerkorian. Unfortunately for Mr.Steve Bing, he was again alleged to be the father when strands of dental floss in his trash can were found to contain DNA samples which matched those of Kira. Given Mr.Kerkorian’s ripe old age and the trash can evidence, it is not entirely difficult to understand Mr.Kerkorian’s doubts or desire to maintain the integrity of his golden estate of MGM studios and Vegas casinos.

Meanwhile, back in the UK of A, a Government code of conduct published last year contends that, in the case of children, the consent of both the mother and father should be obtained before samples may be taken for testing. It is interesting to note that the government’s benign protection of the DNA of mothers and their children is not extended to those who have been wrongfully arrested.

So why adopt such a ‘Janus’ policy towards the sanctity of an individual’s personal DNA? Perhaps the truth lies in a darker part of our primitive (primate) nature. All men are not born equal, nor are they endowed equally. Some men have multiple sexual partners (I sense that there are few disagreements on this issue from the gallery), and many of these are already married or publicly engaged. The solution for the sexually avaricious and dominant social ‘alpha’ male is no different to that of our primate ancestors (albeit more subtly enacted). Dominant males simply have ‘acquiesce’ more girlfriends when they are young, and when they are older these ‘additional lovers’ take the form of mistresses and daughters. Naturally, our true biological natures do not sit well with our monogamous Christian culture which preaches sexual abstinence before marriage, and forbids both adultery and bigamy (which is of course actually illegal). So herein lies the source of our deepest social malady: how to reconcile the dilemma of all our married men and our many unmarried mothers. The solution, until now, has been an age old remedy. Take a young man’s girlfriend as a mistress, give the young man a job in your capacity as a ‘father’ figure (pun intended), and hope that the love-struck youth doesn’t catch on.

Well this timeless strategy has worked its wonders throughout the courts of Western Europe for thousands of years, until that is of course the arrival of widespread and affordable DNA testing. Now those men who never quite managed to quash their uneasy feelings as to how their occasional protected sex or coitus interruptus resulted in their partner’s pregnancy can at last scratch that nagging doubt. Well, at least they could have until it was made illegal. After all, no woman in her right mind is going to give consent to have the paternity of her child(ren) laid bare, especially if she is harbouring a dark secret - 'I mean how could you, after all these years?!’

The modern world affords many opportunities for the unfaithful to practice their dark arts of deception, and of course ignorance is bliss. After all, men of power, responsibility and respectability will always crave their vices, and ‘when needs must the devil drives’. Infidelities are a privilege of rank, so long as they can be married off and raised under the distant gaze of a benefactor’s wry smile. This natural social order has doubtless ‘been going on for hundreds of years’, until that is the advent of the cold and exacting science of DNA technology.

So we now have the ultimate dilemma. Collect all DNA and revel in the mysteries of our ancestry and genetic lineage, or sweep our primate natures under the carpet and keep all DNA sequences within the authoritarian hands of those who apparently need to know. The truth would indeed be a revelation, especially if most families harbour a dark secret or two. The past hundred years have focused upon the rights of women: their right to vote, their right to work, their right to maternity leave, and their right to an abortion. Now perhaps it is time for the age of men’s rights: the right to father your own children, the right to refuse to pay to raise someone else’s, and the right to know the difference. After all, when a man marries a woman, doesn’t she enter into the contract by saying ‘I do’?


N.B. The author has recently been taking a break and can nervously and apprehensively inform both of his readers that he/she has not (yet) been apprehended as part of the recent wave of blogger arrests. The author is apparently a category B+ blog threat and is scheduled to be gassed next January.