a

Investigating following a DNA track is not unique to murder scenes and serial killing crimes. Well, at least not unique to the human species.

DNA analysis has been recently used to track down how whale sushi ended up in the plates of restaurants in California and Korea.

Such tracking is already being conducted on a limited scale by academic researchers and the makers of the Oscar-winning documentary The Cove, using hidden cameras and sophisticated DNA analysis to uncovered the illegal sale of whale meat at a Santa Monica restaurant and at a sushi restaurant in Seoul.

Since the imposition of an international whaling moratorium in 1986 only the Japanese continue whales hunting today. The fact raises many questions regarding the illegal worldwide whale meat trade. Investigators from the Korean Federation of Environmental Movements and Seoul National University helped identify the types of marine animals served at the Korean sushi restaurant. One sample, from a fin whale, genetically matched meat purchased in Japanese markets in 2007, strongly suggesting it came from the same whale.

Dna analysis made possible a deeper understanding of the spreading of whale meat’s black market, even though the total closure on the japans government side on the issue make further investigations quite difficult to pursue.

The first monetary settlement for misuse of DNA sample has been payed after  four years court battle by the Arizona State University.
The beneficiaries of the $700,000 fine are 41 members of the ancient Indian Tribe Havasupai, who have been living in almost complete isolation for centuries in an enchanted corner deep in the Grand Canyon. What brought the two counterparts together was a cry for help from the Havasupai people: the tribe had been struck by an devastating rate of diabetes for years and asked the University to run DNA tests to spot the causes of the epidemic.

It is only years later that one of the few members of the tribe to have attended College, Carletta Tilousi, 39, a member of the tribal council, learned that heir blood samples had been used to study many other things, including mental illness and theories of the tribe’s geographical origins that contradict their traditional stories.

The case raised the question of whether scientists had taken advantage of a vulnerable population, and genetics experts and civil rights advocates say it may also fuel a growing debate over researchers’ responsibility to communicate the range of personal information that can be gleaned from DNA at a time when it is being collected on an ever-greater scale for research and routine medical care.
“I’m not against scientific research,” said Mrs. Tilousi. “I just want it to be done right. They used our blood for all these studies, people got degrees and grants, and they never asked our permission.”

Researchers and institutions that receive federal funds are required to receive “informed consent” from subjects, ensuring that they understand the risks and benefits before they participate. But such protections were designed primarily for research that carried physical risks, like experimental drug trials or surgery. When it comes to mining DNA, the rules — and the risks — are murkier.

Is it necessary, for instance, to ask someone who has donated DNA for research on heart disease if that DNA can be used for Alzheimer’s or addiction research?

Many scientists say no, arguing that the potential benefit from unencumbered biomedical research trumps the value of individual control.

As for any new discipline, the legal system is showing its flaws in terms of proper DNA use regulation.