Dealing in DNA on the increase in SA

Hair and semen taken without consent to test for cheating

SOUTH Africans are increasingly taking other people’s DNA, such as hair and semen, without their consent and having it tested at private DNA laboratories in the Western Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal.

For just more than R1 000, it is possible to find out in as little as 10 days whether your partner has cheated on you, whether you stand to inherit a fortune, or even whether a child you wish to adopt has “desirable traits”.

The question is whether this constitutes DNA theft or is an invasion of privacy, or whether DNA is in fact a freefor-all, something there for the taking by anyone, anywhere and at any time.

Private DNA laboratories such as Genediagnostics in Somerset West and DNAtest and DNA Diagnostics Centre in uMhlanga compete with foreign laboratories such as HomeDNAdirect and EasyDNA, both of which have DNA drop-off points in the Western Cape and Gauteng.

DNAtest owner Nevin Pillay said his firm once tested underwear received from an Eastern Cape man which proved his wife was cheating on him.

“We received the undergarments every Monday without fail for about four weeks. It all belonged to one lady,” said Pillay, adding that people often send them soiled garments to establish to whom they belong.

Pillay acknowledged this could be theft.

“It would be stealing if I take someone’s DNA to use it for something untoward. We’re working in a very grey area of the law,” he said.

While DNAtest allows tests without the consent of the person whose DNA it is, this is banned in the local laboratory.

Monique Zaahl, managing director of Genediagnostics, said they required clients to provide signed consent of the person whose DNA was being tested.

“But we don’t really know who signed. There’s already been a case where a father forged a mother’s signature.”

DNA testing without such consent was unethical, probably illegal and infringed on the right to privacy, she added.

Zaahl said Genediagnostics received many such requests.

“People cut a piece of bedding off or bring hair in a brush or that’s another colour. They say they must know who it belongs to,” she said.

Pillay said people often used test results for insurance or inheritance purposes.

For example, a grandmother from a “very wealthy Durban family couldn’t get her son to accept a child wasn’t his”.

“The child’s mom wanted to get into the family. The DNA test proved her (the grandmother) right,” he said.

In another case, a businessman died and left an insurance policy. A mother could prove her child was half his, so the child became a beneficiary of the policy, said Pillay.

Siblings who knew they didn’t share the same mother checked whether they had the same father too.

Pathologist Dr David Klatzow asked: “If you leave DNA behind, who does it belong to? If I want your DNA, am I entitled to it? If you don’t want your DNA to be taken, isn’t it your responsibility to remove it, wipe it off surfaces? Someone can ask: ‘Why didn’t you take better care of it?’ I don’t know if it’s theft if I deprive you of the use of it,” he said.

A mother might consider it theft if a person who wasn’t allowed to make contact with her child removed hair from the child for DNA tests, the pathologist said.

Reg Horne, managing director of private investigations firm Justicia Investigations, said it was unethical for private investigators to refer DNA for testing if they knew it was obtained without consent.

“Everybody running around with DNA? No. We don’t. If you come to me with DNA, I wouldn’t entertain it. I refer you straight to the private labs,” he said.

But Horne believed it was ethical for a wife to steal hair for DNA tests if she suspected her husband was being unfaithful.