Why DNA paternity test at birth is a bad idea
TWELVE YEARS ago, a policymaker called me and suggested that the situation of paternity fraud (giving ‘jackets’) was an embarrassment to Jamaicans and that we might need to fund paternity testing at birth. I told him that the idea was callous, and he was offended. Since then, four more policymakers (including two from other Caribbean countries) have called me to discuss the idea. Of the five, two cited that it would help to reduce domestic violence – and I explained why it would do the very opposite.
On Tuesday, November 9, Heroy Clarke, the member of parliament (MP) for Central St James, making his contribution to the State of the Constituency Debates in Parliament, stated that he intended to bring a motion calling for DNA paternity testing at birth. Paradoxically, he cited the work of the scholar most likely to discourage the idea on the basis that as a violence expert, I could not support an idea that is likely to increase violence. In the usual dramatic trend, 15 radio and television stations across the Caribbean region called for me to react. As an employed person, I could only respond to six.
Having made a commitment to the RJR programme ‘Beyond the Headlines’ for a 5:30 p.m. interview, I had to deny another station an interview, which would have aired at the same time. On the station that was denied the interview, there was a rant by a colleague accusing me of hating women. The colleague assumed that my work had guided the thoughts of the MP from St James. Clearly, she had not listened to any of the interviews I had done earlier in the day before entering the launchpad of hate-spreading. I have had this experience with the same colleague and eight others for over a decade of returning home to help Jamaica reduce its violence. Of the nine women who have carried out these false declarations, only three have apologised.
REASONING AND REACTING
The human brain does many things, but most of the activities can be summarised into reasoning and reacting. Reasoning is slower but more accurate; reaction is faster but often erroneous. Reacting without reasoning can be very dangerous.
Unfortunately, people who focus their careers on campaigning often do not have the space to reason. Science and research are centred on reasoning. I use this medium to appeal to those who campaign to inject some degree of scientific rigour into their utterances. Some campaigners can merge science and good conscience with aggression to be effective. Others find it easier to establish ‘cancel culture’ or brutal attacks on scientists or those who share different opinions. In Jamaica, many of our campaigners target persons who challenge their ideas, and this denies them the chance to benefit from partnership.
Here are 10 ‘reasoning’ points to consider when discussing the use of DNA to reduce domestic violence and why I have discouraged policymakers from making the error of forcing paternity DNA on families.
1. Most of the data on paternity fraud in Jamaica are niche studies. They focus on only the poor and working class who have higher incidents of jackets than other SES (socio-economic) groups. Hence we hear of proportions like 33 per cent or more. The preliminary Masters of Science (MSc) Male Fertility Study done by students of the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work shows that 19.8 per cent of men suspect getting a jacket, and 21% declared that they gave another man a jacket.
2. Addressing paternity fraud is male Schadenfreude (revenge). Having been called worthless fathers for centuries, some men have smiled at the reality that they are not the only ones to blame for the erosion of our social fabric. Therefore, all five of the policymakers who have consulted me on forcing people to do paternity DNA at birth are men, and this is why the data of testing released in 2019 were misinterpreted. One DNA diagnostic business revealed in 2019 that 70 per cent of persons who suspected paternity fraud were proven correct. When that happened, I had to do 13 interviews explaining to Jamaicans that it means that 30 per cent of the women accused of giving jackets were falsely accused. Even two years later, people still say to me that 70 per cent of Jamaicans are jackets. How did this interpretation come from such data?
3. A quarter of our homes have intimatepartner violence (IPV), and the main reason for this is conflict over money (70 per cent). This means that even if we give everyone a DNA test and do not address poverty, the violence would not go down.
4. In order for have DNA at birth, the State would have to use taxpayers’ money to subsidise it. These tests can cost over $20,000. I have advised policymakers for 12 years that these monies would achieve maximum positive results to reduce violence and paternity fraud if they gave it to the poorest mothers – the ones they fear are giving men jackets.
5. Giving jackets is a child-shifting practice. Women do not usually set out to give men jackets. The primary reason they do so is related to poverty. If the biological father is too poor or too violent or unfit in some other way, a better father (in a multiple relations setting) is selected. Therefore, 64 per cent of persons who discovered that they were jackets concluded that they got a better father – though they said that they suffered emotional pain at discovering that they were a jacket. Two-thirds of the men and their families who get jackets also continue to take care of the child after discovering the DNA of the child in question.
6. Paternity fraud is the second most popular reason for murder-suicide in Jamaica. This means that men take the embarrassment and deceit very seriously. Nonetheless, there are not enough cases of murder-suicide to validate the use of forced DNA to save Jamaica.
7. If paternity fraud can cause murdersuicide, and we only have about a dozen per year, why would we wish to provide a trigger to cause more murder-suicides? It is fair to assume that the DNA testing proposed would increase violence against women.
8. All forms of violence are complex and require complex models to guide policies. There is no ‘switch’ to turn off violence. It requires a lot of work.
9. In my teenage life I mocked my best friend who said he had a gut feeling. I told him that he may need to go to the toilet. Today, my childhood observation remains true. If you have a gut feeling you should not consider it to mean that a policy is in the making. Consult with persons who have done research on the area. Gut feelings can be dangerous.
10. Suggestions of paternity tests at birth could be considered as supportive of hegemonic patriarchy as it could be seen as an attempt to reduce women reproductive advantage. This would be bad for a group of people already divided by gender funding. My humble suggestion is for us to move towards gender unity and partnership. Let us encourage families to sit and discuss the issues related to paternity. When we fix our economic issues, the number of jackets will be reduced.