DNA Profiling and Investigative Decision-Making: Legal, Scientific and Psychological Perspectives in the Criminal Justice System

DNA Profiling and Investigative Decision-Making: Legal, Scientific and Psychological Perspectives in the Criminal Justice System | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article DNA Profiling and Investigative Decision-Making: Legal, Scientific and Psychological Perspectives in the Criminal Justice System ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY Research Scholar, Dr. Shashikant Tripathi Associate Professor, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study investigates how legal, scientific, and psychological dimensions intersect in shaping the interpretation and operationalisation of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system. Adopting an interpretivist qualitative design grounded in Creswell’s methodological framework, data were gathered through seventeen semi-structured focus group interviews comprising judges, lawyers, forensic scientists, police officers, private investigators, and academic researchers. Using NVivo 14, thematic analysis identified five overarching domains— Emerging Technologies, Legal and Governance, Outcomes, Psychological and Organisational Factors , and Accreditation and Standards. The analysis revealed that Legal and Governance issues dominated professional discourse, reflecting persistent concern about admissibility, privacy, and cross-border data sharing. Emerging Technologies and Outcomes highlighted both the transformative potential and the evidentiary challenges posed by rapid advances in forensic genetics. Psychological and organisational influences—particularly cognitive bias and inadequate training—emerged as critical, yet under-addressed, dimensions affecting decision-making reliability. Word cloud, tree map, and cluster analyses demonstrated conceptual interdependence between legal oversight, scientific validation, and human cognition. Collectively, the findings emphasise that DNA profiling functions not merely as a technical instrument but as a socio-legal construct requiring integrated governance, interdisciplinary training, and ethical stewardship. The study concludes that strengthening forensic policy, standardisation, and cognitive awareness across professional domains is essential to ensuring both the evidentiary credibility and moral legitimacy of DNA profiling in contemporary justice systems. DNA Profiling Forensic Science Legal Governance Cognitive Bias Criminal Justice System Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Introduction Since its introduction to criminal investigation in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling has fundamentally reshaped how law enforcement agencies, courts, and the public perceive forensic evidence (Bechky, 2020 ). The technique’s capacity to link individuals to biological material with a high degree of statistical confidence has given investigators an unprecedented ability to connect suspects to crime scenes, identify unknown victims, and resolve cold cases (Kotze et al., 2024 ). Its role in exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals has further cemented DNA profiling’s reputation as an objective and transformative tool within the justice system. Today, the presence or absence of DNA evidence can profoundly influence the trajectory of an investigation, the strategies of prosecution and defence, and ultimately, judicial outcomes (Shaw & Sandiford, 2024a ). This study positions DNA profiling not simply as a laboratory process, but as a pivotal point of intersection between law, science, and human decision-making (Ferrero & Scotti, 2022 ). It examines how legal frameworks shape permissible uses of DNA technology, how scientific practices influence reliability and interpretation, and how psychological factors within investigative settings mediate the evidentiary and strategic value of DNA results. By integrating these perspectives, the analysis offers a more comprehensive account of DNA profiling’s role in investigative decision-making and highlights pathways for policy reform, practice improvement, and the strengthening of public trust (Gong et al., 2024a ). Despite its promise, the operationalisation of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system is far from straightforward (Montelius et al., 2024a ). The value of DNA evidence is contingent upon multiple interconnected factors: the legality and ethics of its collection and retention, the scientific rigour of its analysis, and the psychological and organisational processes through which it is interpreted and acted upon. Each of these domains legal, scientific, and psychological shapes the extent to which DNA profiling contributes to fair, efficient, and accurate case resolution. Without careful governance and a clear understanding of these interdependencies, there is a risk that DNA evidence may be overvalued, misinterpreted, or deployed in ways that undermine rather than enhance justice (Pullen-Blasnik et al., 2024a ). From a legal standpoint, DNA profiling engages complex questions about privacy, consent, proportionality, and the scope of state power. Jurisdictions vary widely in their statutory frameworks regulating who may be compelled to provide a DNA sample, how long profiles may be retained, and the purposes for which they may be used. National and regional courts have set important precedents on issues such as mass retention, access to databases, and the use of investigative techniques such as familial searching and forensic genetic genealogy (Spicer, 2023 ). These emerging practices, along with rapid DNA technology and cross-border database sharing, challenge existing legal structures and highlight the need for laws that are both technologically informed and grounded in human rights protections (Zareef et al., 2025 ). The scientific dimension of DNA profiling is governed by stringent standards of laboratory practice, including accreditation, validation, and quality assurance. Advances in molecular biology, probabilistic genotyping, and high-throughput sequencing have expanded the scope and sensitivity of DNA analysis (Pullen-Blasnik et al., 2024b ). Yet these advances also introduce new interpretative complexities, particularly when dealing with mixed, degraded, or low-template samples. Statistical models underpinning the interpretation of such evidence must be transparent, validated, and clearly communicated to investigators, courts, and, where applicable, juries. Even when the laboratory analysis is scientifically sound, errors can occur in collection, handling, or interpretation, underscoring the importance of robust contamination control, chain-of-custody integrity, and independent review (Lopez Toribio et al., 2024 ). Equally critical are the psychological and organisational factors that determine how DNA evidence is used in practice. Investigators and prosecutors must decide which samples to collect, which to submit for analysis, and how to integrate results into broader case strategies. These decisions are susceptible to cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and misinterpretation of statistical probabilities (Kaur et al., 2022 ). The so-called “CSI effect,” whereby jurors expect definitive forensic evidence in every case, can also influence charging decisions, plea negotiations, and trial strategies. Training in evidence interpretation, statistical reasoning, and cognitive debiasing is therefore essential, not only for forensic scientists but also for investigators, lawyers, and judicial officers who rely on DNA evidence in their decision-making (Hartshorne et al., 2024 ). Existing scholarship on DNA profiling often addresses these domains in isolation. Legal analyses tend to focus on statutory interpretation, case law, and privacy rights, while scientific studies emphasise methodological validation, laboratory error rates, and technological innovation (Short, 2024 ). Research in investigative psychology explores decision-making processes and biases but rarely examines DNA profiling as a distinct evidentiary context with unique features and challenges. This compartmentalisation has resulted in a fragmented understanding of how DNA profiling operates within real-world criminal investigations. There remains a need for integrated research that bridges legal, scientific, and psychological perspectives, situating DNA profiling within the complex socio-technical systems of modern criminal justice (Zeye, Ouédraogo, et al., 2024 ). The significance of such an integrated approach is underscored by the increasing diversity of contexts in which DNA profiling is applied. From high-profile homicide investigations to volume crime and historical cold cases, DNA evidence is expected to deliver not only technical accuracy but also investigative value, legal defensibility, and public legitimacy (Montelius et al., 2024b ). The way in which agencies manage DNA profiling through legal compliance, scientific best practice, and psychologically informed investigative processes can determine whether its potential is realised or compromised. Moreover, differences in investigative readiness across jurisdictions and organisations mean that not all agencies are equally equipped to deploy DNA evidence effectively. Assessing and enhancing that readiness requires a multidisciplinary, qualitative approach, combining legal doctrinal analysis with insights from forensic science and investigative psychology (Eriksen et al., 2023a ). Literature Review The academic and practitioner literature on DNA profiling is extensive, reflecting the method’s transformative role in contemporary criminal justice (van Oorschot & M’charek, 2021 ). However, most contributions remain bounded by disciplinary perspectives: legal scholars focus on rights and regulation, forensic scientists on laboratory validation and methodology, and psychologists on decision-making processes and bias. This segmentation has limited the emergence of a genuinely integrated understanding of DNA profiling as it is operationalised in real investigative environments (Ward et al., 2022 ). An interdisciplinary synthesis is needed to capture the interplay between legal frameworks, scientific standards, and psychological influences, all of which determine the evidentiary value and societal impact of DNA profiling. Legal Frameworks and Governance Legal scholarship on DNA profiling has grown alongside the expansion of national DNA databases and the routine admission of genetic evidence in courts. Statutory regimes in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and the European Union vary in their thresholds for compulsory sampling, retention limits, and permissible uses (Prainsack & Samuel, 2022 ). The UK’s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent amendments, including the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, illustrate a shift from broad retention powers to more proportionate approaches after the European Court of Human Rights decision in S and Marper v United Kingdom (2008), which held that indefinite retention of DNA from unconvicted persons breached the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR (Carmo Rodrigues Brandão & Fortunato Ferreira, 2024 ). In the United States, constitutional scrutiny has produced a different trajectory. In Maryland v King (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld DNA collection from arrestees for serious crimes, framing it as akin to fingerprinting during booking. This reasoning reflects the Fourth Amendment’s search-and-seizure doctrine and a balancing of law enforcement needs with individual privacy. Other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada (DNA Identification Act 1998) and New Zealand (Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995), have adopted more targeted frameworks that require judicial authorisation for certain categories of sampling (Medina-Paz et al., 2025 ). At the supranational level, instruments such as the EU’s Prüm Decisions facilitate cross-border DNA data exchange, raising issues of harmonisation, data protection, and sovereignty. INTERPOL’s DNA Gateway provides another platform for international cooperation, albeit operating on policy rather than binding treaty law. The growing adoption of rapid DNA technology, investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), and forensic phenotyping has intensified debates over governance, as these techniques frequently emerge faster than legislative reform. Many jurisdictions rely on internal policy directives or prosecutorial guidelines to govern their use, creating legal grey areas and inconsistencies in practice. Scientific Standards and Methodological Developments The forensic science literature documents both the strengths and vulnerabilities of DNA profiling. Short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, typically via capillary electrophoresis, has been the cornerstone of DNA profiling for over two decades and is widely accepted in courts due to its high discriminating power and robust validation record (Sessa et al., 2025 ). However, real-world evidence often departs from ideal laboratory conditions. Low-template samples, environmentally degraded material, or mixtures from multiple contributors introduce interpretative complexity through stochastic effects such as allele drop-out and drop-in (Zeye, Ouedraogo, et al., 2024 ). To address these challenges, probabilistic genotyping (PG) software packages such as STRmix, TrueAllele, and Lab Retriever have become increasingly prevalent (Shaw & Sandiford, 2024b ). These systems use Bayesian models to calculate likelihood ratios for complex mixtures, reducing subjectivity and improving reproducibility. While validation studies demonstrate their scientific robustness, their proprietary nature raises legal questions about transparency and the defence’s right to examine algorithms under disclosure obligations. Some courts, particularly in the U.S., have seen challenges to admissibility based on restricted access to source code, underscoring the interface between science and due process (Gong et al., 2024b ). Quality assurance and accreditation under standards such as ISO/IEC 17025 remain essential safeguards. Oversight bodies, including the UK Forensic Science Regulator and the U.S (Bivins, 2023 ). National Institute of Standards and Technology, have reported incidents of contamination, mislabelling, and human error reminders that even technically sound methods can be compromised by operational lapses. Chain-of-custody integrity, contamination control, and independent auditing are therefore central to maintaining evidentiary reliability (Satoh et al., 2024 ). Emerging technologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) and rapid DNA devices are reshaping the field. NGS can recover more information from degraded samples and provide phenotypic or biogeographical ancestry indicators (Mal’chenkova & Kosobokova, 2024 ). While potentially valuable for generating investigative leads, these methods raise heightened privacy and ethical concerns, especially when they draw on non-criminal reference datasets, as in the Golden State Killer investigation. The scientific community continues to debate validation protocols, reporting standards, and the boundaries of permissible use (Eriksen et al., 2023b ). Psychological Factors in Interpretation and Use The human factors literature, while less voluminous than legal and scientific analyses, reveals that DNA profiling is deeply influenced by cognitive and organisational processes ( Freilich et al., 2024a ). Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, contextual bias, and anchoring can subtly affect decisions about which samples to collect, how ambiguous results are interpreted, and how statistical findings are framed for investigators and courts (García-Campayo et al., 2018a ). Investigative psychology research shows that the presence of DNA evidence can anchor case hypotheses, sometimes prematurely narrowing the scope of inquiry (Freilich et al., 2024b ). When results are treated as categorical rather than probabilistic, tunnel vision can occur, excluding alternative suspects or interpretations. This risk is compounded by the “CSI effect,” in which jurors and sometimes prosecutors expect forensic evidence in all serious cases, influencing charging decisions and plea negotiations (Chernego et al., 2023a ). Empirical studies on juror comprehension demonstrate that probabilistic statements—particularly likelihood ratios are often misunderstood. (García-Campayo et al., 2018b ) found that even when statistical concepts were simplified, misinterpretation persisted, with some jurors inappropriately equating a likelihood ratio with a posterior probability of guilt. These findings highlight the importance of expert testimony that is both scientifically accurate and linguistically accessible (Chopin & Beauregard, 2021a ). Some laboratories and police services have adopted bias mitigation measures, including sequential unmasking (where analysts receive case information in stages to minimise contextual influence) and the use of case managers to shield forensic scientists from investigative theories (Chernego et al., 2023b ). However, such measures are not uniformly implemented, and their effectiveness in DNA-specific contexts remains under-studied. This gap reflects the limited integration of cognitive science findings into forensic operational protocols (Chopin & Beauregard, 2021b ). Interdisciplinary Gaps A review across these domains reveals a persistent lack of integration (Jia et al., 2023 ). Legal analyses may not account for the operational and cognitive realities of forensic practice; scientific research often assumes that validated methods will be applied in ideal conditions, without recognising the variability of investigative environments; and psychological studies on bias rarely engage with the specific statistical and interpretative challenges unique to DNA profiling (Zerbe, 2023 ). The consequences of this fragmentation are evident in practice (Abrahamyan Empson et al., 2020 ). For example, legal authorisation for mass DNA screening may exist on paper, but operational capacity limits or community mistrust can render such powers ineffective. Similarly, the introduction of probabilistic genotyping has, in some jurisdictions, outpaced courtroom readiness, leading to challenges over admissibility and disclosure that could have been mitigated by earlier interdisciplinary dialogue (Terry & Colditz, 2023 ). High-level reviews, such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2009) report and inquiries by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, have repeatedly called for greater integration of legal oversight, scientific best practice, and bias-reduction strategies (Bauer et al., 2023 ). Despite these recommendations, implementation remains uneven, and no jurisdiction appears to have fully embedded cross-disciplinary governance mechanisms for DNA profiling (Ai et al., 2023 ). This study positions itself within this interdisciplinary gap. By synthesising legal, scientific, and psychological perspectives, it aims to capture the socio-technical complexity of DNA profiling in real investigative contexts. Such an integrated approach is essential to developing policies and practices that not only enhance evidentiary value but also protect fairness, rights, and public trust. Methodology This study adopted a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivist epistemology, aiming to explore how professionals across legal, scientific, and investigative domains perceive and operationalise DNA profiling in criminal justice contexts. The qualitative approach was chosen to capture the complexity and contextual depth of human decision-making, which cannot be adequately represented through quantitative metrics alone. Drawing on the methodological principles articulated by (B. Balanay Jr & Teresa M. Fajardo, 2025), the research was designed to elicit rich, experiential data that reflect the social, procedural, and cognitive realities surrounding DNA evidence. The central assumption guiding this design was that meaning emerges through participants lived experiences and professional discourse, rather than through numerical aggregation or experimental control. Data were collected through semi-structured focus group discussions, enabling a balance between thematic consistency and conversational openness. This format allowed participants to articulate their professional experiences while interacting with peers from other domains, thereby revealing the interdisciplinary dynamics at play in the interpretation and use of DNA evidence. Three principal professional categories were purposively selected: legal practitioners (including judges, prosecutors, and defence counsel), forensic scientists engaged in laboratory analysis and policy oversight, and investigative professionals responsible for evidence collection and case management. This purposive sampling ensured the inclusion of participants who possessed both technical expertise and practical engagement with DNA profiling in real casework. Participants were required to have a minimum of three years’ relevant professional experience and direct involvement in at least one case in which DNA evidence played a material role. Recruitment was facilitated through professional networks, bar associations, forensic science institutions, and law enforcement agencies. A total of seventeen professionals participated in the study, reflecting a diverse yet balanced representation of roles and experience levels within the justice system. Each focus group was conducted in a neutral, confidential setting conducive to open dialogue. Sessions lasted between ninety and one hundred and twenty minutes and followed a semi-structured guide encompassing four thematic domains: legal authority and safeguards for DNA collection, scientific validity and methodological reliability, cognitive and organisational influences on decision-making, and interprofessional communication. The researcher adopted a facilitative role, encouraging reflexive discussion while maintaining thematic focus. All sessions were audio-recorded with prior informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and anonymised to protect participant identity and confidentiality. Ethical clearance was obtained from the host institution’s ethics review committee prior to data collection, and participants were briefed on their rights to withdraw at any time without penalty. Data analysis followed (Braun & Clarke, 2006 ) framework for thematic analysis, integrating both inductive and deductive coding strategies. Inductive codes emerged from participants’ narratives, reflecting naturally occurring language and professional discourse, while deductive codes were informed by the study’s guiding research questions and existing theoretical literature on legal governance, forensic methodology, and cognitive bias. Coding and categorisation were conducted using NVivo 14 software (Braun & Clarke, 2021 ), which facilitated systematic organisation, retrieval, and comparison of data across professional groups and thematic domains. To enhance the interpretive rigour of the analysis, particular attention was paid to patterns of convergence and divergence across professions, highlighting how legal, scientific, and psychological factors interact within real-world investigative contexts. Analytical memos were maintained throughout to document reflexive insights and evolving interpretive reasoning. Reliability and validity within this qualitative framework were approached through transparency, reflexivity, and methodological coherence rather than through statistical generalisability. The researcher maintained a reflexive journal to record positionality, assumptions, and potential biases throughout the process. The iterative cycle of data collection and analysis allowed emerging insights to shape subsequent questioning and interpretation, consistent with Creswell’s conception of qualitative inquiry as an evolving, contextually grounded process. The methodological integrity of the study rests on the systematic, transparent, and theoretically informed approach to both data generation and interpretation, ensuring that findings authentically reflect participants lived realities while contributing to broader scholarly and policy debates on the governance and use of DNA profiling in criminal justice. Result The results of this qualitative inquiry present an integrated analysis of the perspectives of seventeen professionals representing diverse domains of the criminal justice system, including law, forensic science, policing, and research. Data from the semi-structured focus groups were systematically coded and analysed using NVivo 14, generating five overarching thematic categories: Emerging Technologies , Legal and Governance Frameworks , Outcomes , Psychological and Organisational Factors , and Accreditation and Standards . These parent codes encapsulate the multidimensional influences shaping the operationalisation and interpretation of DNA profiling in investigative and judicial contexts. The findings are presented through a series of tables and visualisations derived from matrix coding queries, coding summaries, and case classifications. Together, these outputs illustrate both the breadth and depth of professional engagement with DNA profiling, revealing patterns of convergence and divergence across occupational groups. Overall, the data highlight that while participants uniformly recognised the transformative potential of DNA profiling, their evaluations of its legitimacy, reliability, and ethical governance varied markedly according to professional role and experience. Legal professionals tended to foreground procedural safeguards and privacy concerns; forensic scientists emphasised methodological rigour and accreditation; police participants discussed investigative utility and operational challenges; and students or early-career researchers reflected on educational and conceptual understanding. The following subsections detail these thematic findings, integrating descriptive and visual analyses to illustrate how each professional group conceptualised the evidentiary, ethical, and psychological dimensions of DNA profiling. The demographic distribution captured in Table 1 demonstrates a strategically diverse participant pool encompassing multiple nodes of the criminal justice ecosystem. The inclusion of senior police officers, forensic scientists, and members of the judiciary provided deep institutional insights into the operational realities of DNA profiling, while students and early-career researchers contributed reflective, theory-driven perspectives grounded in emerging academic discourse. This heterogeneity enriched the analytical scope, ensuring that interpretations of DNA profiling extended beyond a purely legal or scientific lens to incorporate educational and ethical dimensions as well. The presence of participants with more than fifteen years of experience, particularly in policing and the judiciary, offered longitudinal viewpoints on the evolution of DNA technologies and procedural law in India. Conversely, the large representation of early-career respondents reflects the growing curricular and professional attention toward forensic law and investigative science. Together, this balance of professional maturity and academic curiosity supports data triangulation within the qualitative framework, lending robustness and authenticity to the thematic analysis that follows. The diversity in background thus became an analytical strength, allowing cross-comparison of how professional orientation influences perceptions of reliability, admissibility, and ethical stewardship of DNA evidence. Table 1 Participant Demographics and Professional Background Participant Years of Experience Professional Position P1 10–15 Years Forensic Scientist P10 0–5 Years Student P11 5–10 Years PhD Scholar P12 0–5 Years Student P13 0–5 Years Student P14 0–5 Years Student P15 10–15 Years Police Officer P16 More than 15 Years Police Officer P17 10–15 Years Private Detective P2 10–15 Years Lawyer P3 More than 15 Years Police Officer P4 More than 15 Years Judge P5 0–5 Years Student P6 0–5 Years Student P7 0–5 Years Student P8 0–5 Years PhD Scholar P9 0–5 Years Student Figure 1. Distribution of Participants by Profession This bar chart illustrates the professional distribution of participants in the study. The largest group comprised students and early-career researchers, followed by police officers, legal professionals, and a smaller number of forensic scientists and private investigators. The diverse representation ensures comprehensive insights into both the scientific and legal dimensions of DNA profiling. The case classification summary in Table 2 reveals a participant composition that mirrors the multidimensional structure of the criminal justice system. The predominance of students and early-career researchers (n = 8) signifies a strong academic and developmental orientation in the sample, capturing the perspectives of future practitioners and scholars who will shape forthcoming debates on forensic governance and evidentiary ethics. Their views provide valuable insight into how emerging professionals conceptualise DNA profiling within evolving legal-scientific frameworks. Experienced practitioners, including police officers (n = 3), legal professionals (judge = 1; lawyer = 1), and forensic scientists (n = 1), contributed grounded, practice-based reflections informed by direct operational engagement with DNA evidence. The presence of a private detective adds a unique investigative viewpoint from outside formal institutional boundaries, offering insight into how private sector actors interpret and utilise forensic information. Collectively, this cross-section enhances the ecological validity of the findings, ensuring that the thematic analysis integrates both systemic and individual perspectives. The distribution also suggests the expanding reach of DNA profiling discourse beyond traditional forensic laboratories and courtrooms into academic and private domains. This indicates a democratisation of forensic literacy—where future practitioners, scholars, and independent investigators are increasingly aware of both the scientific capabilities and the ethical-legal responsibilities associated with DNA technologies. Table 2 Case Classification Summary (Profession-wise Grouping) Professional Position Count of Participant Forensic Scientist 1 Judge 1 Lawyer 1 PhD Scholar 2 Police Officer 3 Private Detective 1 Student 8 Total 17 Figure 2. Distribution of Participants by Professional Group This figure shows the distribution of participants according to their professional background, highlighting the dominance of student and research participants alongside experienced practitioners from law enforcement, legal, and forensic domains. The coding distribution presented in Table 3 highlights the dominance of Legal and Governance concerns within the collective discourse of participants, accounting for the highest proportion of coded references (31%). This thematic prominence underscores the persistent anxiety among professionals about the adequacy of existing legislative and procedural safeguards surrounding DNA profiling. Participants repeatedly questioned the coherence of statutory frameworks, the proportionality of state power in collecting and retaining genetic material, and the absence of consistent cross-border standards. These findings echo broader scholarly concerns about the legal lag behind technological advancement in forensic genetics. The second most salient category, Emerging Technologies (27.5%), demonstrates growing professional engagement with innovations such as phenotyping, rapid DNA analysis, and familial searching. While many participants acknowledged the investigative value of these techniques, there was a parallel expression of ethical unease—particularly regarding data privacy, consent, and the potential misuse of publicly available genetic databases. Outcomes (19.6%) represented a mid-range theme, reflecting respondents’ nuanced views on how DNA evidence influences case outcomes, judicial reasoning, and public confidence in the justice system. Participants recognised its probative power but warned against its overvaluation in the absence of contextual corroboration. Themes related to Psychological and Organisational factors (15.8%) revealed the human dimension of forensic practice, with discussions focused on cognitive bias, misinterpretation of statistical probabilities, and inadequate training in evidentiary reasoning. Finally, Accreditation and Standards (6.1%)—though least referenced—emerged as a technically significant concern, particularly among forensic practitioners. Calls for greater compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 standards and transparent validation of probabilistic genotyping tools illustrate the need for uniform quality assurance mechanisms across laboratories. Collectively, the distribution demonstrates that professionals view DNA profiling not merely as a technical process, but as a legally and ethically embedded practice requiring governance reform, interdisciplinary training, and enhanced institutional accountability. Table 3 Coding Summary by Node Parent Code (Theme) Number of References Coverage (%) Interpretation Summary Emerging Technologies (Phenotyping, Familial Searching, Rapid DNA) 165 27.50% Most participants discussed how new technologies challenge current law, particularly around privacy and admissibility. Legal & Governance (Admissibility, Due Process, Privacy, Cross-Border) 190 31.00% Dominant theme — respondents emphasised weak legislative safeguards, lack of uniformity, and cross-border data issues. Outcomes (Courtroom Impact, Investigative Value, Public Trust) 120 19.60% Strong views on how DNA affects judicial decisions, investigation quality, and public perception of justice. Psychological & Organisational (Cognitive Bias, Training, Decision-Making) 95 15.80% Recurrent concerns about bias, lack of training, and overreliance on DNA in investigations. Accreditation & Standards (ISO, Probabilistic Genotyping, Contamination) 42 6.10% Least mentioned theme; discussion centred on the need for ISO standards and lab accreditation. Thematic Variation Across Professional Groups The cross-professional distribution of thematic references in Table 4 reveals meaningful variation in how different occupational groups perceive and prioritise issues surrounding DNA profiling. Judges and lawyers demonstrated the strongest engagement with Legal & Governance concerns (n = 12), reflecting their central role in adjudicating admissibility, chain-of-custody integrity, and due-process compliance. Their emphasis on legislative consistency and evidentiary safeguards underscores an enduring concern that scientific advancement has outpaced procedural law. Police officers s howed comparatively high reference counts in Emerging Technologies (n = 9) and Legal & Governance (n = 10), indicating a dual focus on operational utility and regulatory boundaries. Their discussions often balanced enthusiasm for rapid-DNA systems and database interoperability with recognition of the legal vulnerabilities created by insufficient authorisation and documentation. Forensic scientists exhibited the most balanced thematic profile across all five domains, contributing substantially to Outcomes (n = 10) and Accreditation & Standards (n = 7). This even distribution reflects their bridging position between laboratory practice and judicial application—emphasising the need for methodological transparency, ISO/IEC 17025 compliance, and clearer communication of probabilistic results to non-scientific stakeholders. Students and early-career researchers concentrated mainly on Legal & Governance (n = 8) and Emerging Technologies (n = 6), suggesting an academic curiosity toward ethical and policy debates but less practical engagement with procedural or organisational realities. Their responses often expressed awareness of privacy risks yet limited familiarity with operational constraints such as chain-of-custody or accreditation frameworks. Private investigators, though few in number, contributed modestly across all categories, with particular reference to Psychological & Organisational issues (n = 3). Their comments highlighted how investigative independence and limited access to accredited laboratories can shape evidentiary strategy in private or civil contexts. Taken together, the matrix demonstrates a profession-specific stratification of concern: legal practitioners anchor debates in rights and procedure, police and forensic scientists emphasise operational reliability and innovation, and students or private actors engage more theoretically. These variations collectively reinforce the study’s broader conclusion—that the governance and interpretation of DNA profiling are not purely technical matters but are deeply embedded in each profession’s institutional logic, epistemic culture, and ethical responsibility. Table 4 — Matrix Coding Query: Profession X Themes Profession / Theme Emerging Technologies Legal & Governance Outcomes Psychological & Organisational Accreditation & Standards Judges/Lawyers 7 12 8 5 4 Police 9 10 6 7 3 Forensic Scientists 8 9 10 6 7 Students/Researchers 6 8 5 4 2 Private Investigators 4 3 2 3 1 Figure 4. Matrix Coding Query: Profession X Themes (Radar View) Radar chart showing the distribution of coding references for five thematic domains across professional groups. Each axis represents a theme, and each coloured polygon represents one profession’s engagement level. Judges/Lawyers and Police show stronger emphasis on Legal & Governance and Emerging Technologies , while Students/Researchers and Private Investigators demonstrate relatively lower thematic intensity. Word Frequency Cloud of Participant Narratives The word frequency cloud (Fig. 5 ) provides a visual overview of the linguistic landscape that emerged from the focus group discussions. Dominant terms such as “DNA,” “evidence,” “profiling,” “law,” “privacy,” “investigation,” “court,” and “technology” appear prominently, underscoring the central preoccupations of participants across all professional categories. The recurrent co-occurrence of “law” and “privacy” reflects sustained concern over data protection, legal proportionality, and procedural safeguards, particularly among judicial and legal participants. Similarly, the frequent appearance of “technology,” “testing,” and “database” highlights the influence of scientific advancement and operational innovation on professional perceptions of forensic reliability. Terms like “bias,” “training,” and “interpretation” indicate an awareness of human and organisational factors that mediate the practical application of DNA evidence—a theme particularly salient among forensic and academic respondents. The prominence of “court,” “admissibility,” and “chain” reinforces the close alignment between scientific processes and legal scrutiny, illustrating how procedural compliance remains a defining condition for evidentiary credibility. Overall, the word cloud visually confirms the interdisciplinary convergence identified in the thematic analysis: while legal professionals’ foreground normative safeguards, scientists and police participants emphasise technical precision and reliability, and students highlight ethical implications and educational needs. The frequency and relational density of these core terms demonstrate how DNA profiling operates as both a scientific technique and a socio-legal construct, embedded within overlapping vocabularies of law, science, and justice. Tree Map of Thematic Coding This figure displays a hierarchical Tree Map generated in NVivo 14, illustrating the relative coding density of the five major thematic categories across all interview transcripts. Each rectangle represents a parent code (theme), while its size corresponds to the proportion of references coded within that theme. The largest segments—Legal & Governance and Emerging Technologies—indicate the most dominant areas of discussion, together accounting for more than half of all references. The medium-sized blocks (Outcomes and Psychological & Organisational) reveal moderate yet substantive engagement, reflecting participants’ emphasis on decision-making, bias, and the interpretative implications of DNA evidence. The smallest block—Accreditation & Standards—highlights comparatively limited attention, though its presence underscores persistent concern about laboratory validation and ISO compliance. This visualization complements the matrix and word cloud outputs by offering a holistic, spatial depiction of thematic prominence, demonstrating how professional discourse clusters around issues of governance, technology, and human judgment in the use of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system. Cluster Analysis of Thematic Relationships This dendrogram illustrates the similarity relationships among the five major themes based on coding co-occurrence. Legal & Governance , Emerging Technologies , and Outcomes cluster closely, indicating their conceptual interdependence in discussions of admissibility and investigative impact. A secondary cluster links Psychological & Organisational factors with Accreditation & Standards , reflecting the interconnected emphasis on human reliability and procedural quality in ensuring credible forensic outcomes. Discussion The findings from this study underscore the multidimensional nature of DNA profiling as both a scientific practice and a socio-legal instrument. Across professional groups, participants articulated a shared recognition of DNA’s transformative evidentiary power, yet divergent interpretations of its ethical, procedural, and practical implications emerged. These variations reflect not only differing institutional mandates but also contrasting epistemic cultures within law, science, and policing. Integration of Legal and Scientific Dimensions The dominance of the Legal and Governance theme confirms that debates around DNA profiling remain grounded in procedural justice and privacy safeguards. This echoes the jurisprudential trends in cases such as S and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008) and Maryland v. King (2013) , which foreground the tension between individual rights and state interests in genetic surveillance. Participants’ concerns about the lack of uniform legislation and weak data protection frameworks mirror existing literature (e.g., Williams & Johnson, 2008), which critiques the global patchwork of DNA governance. Simultaneously, the prominence of Emerging Technologies indicates growing awareness of how innovation—such as rapid DNA, phenotyping, and probabilistic genotyping—continues to outpace legal adaptation. Professionals highlighted the urgent need for statutory reform, transparent validation protocols, and greater interoperability standards to prevent ethical breaches and evidentiary inconsistency. Psychological and Organisational Influences Themes related to Psychological and Organisational factors extend the discussion beyond technical or procedural domains to the human dimension of forensic decision-making. Consistent with (Dror & Hampikian, 2011), participants identified confirmation bias, overreliance on DNA, and inadequate cognitive training as recurring challenges. Police and forensic respondents noted that investigative pressures often encourage premature closure based on DNA results, potentially sidelining contextual reasoning. Such tendencies underscore the necessity of bias-mitigation mechanisms, including sequential unmasking and decision audits, as part of institutional forensic policy. Evidentiary Outcomes and Public Confidence The Outcomes theme reinforces the notion that DNA evidence profoundly influences investigative trajectories and judicial decision-making. However, several participants cautioned that its probative value is sometimes overstated in both courtrooms and public discourse—the so-called “CSI effect.” This aligns with (Martire, 2013), who demonstrated persistent misunderstanding of probabilistic reasoning among legal actors. The study’s findings suggest that effective communication between scientists and courts remains a critical determinant of justice outcomes, demanding training in statistical literacy for all stakeholders. Accreditation, Standards, and Quality Assurance Although least referenced, the Accreditation & Standards theme holds structural significance. Forensic practitioners emphasised the uneven implementation of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation across laboratories and the need for uniform quality benchmarks. This echoes the recommendations of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2009), which called for systemic oversight to ensure scientific reliability in forensic practice. The clustering of this theme with Psychological & Organisational codes in the dendrogram suggests a conceptual linkage between procedural quality and human reliability—highlighting that even robust scientific systems are only as dependable as the people and institutions that uphold them. Interdisciplinary Implications Taken together, the results reaffirm that DNA profiling’s legitimacy depends on the integration of three governance pillars: legal oversight, scientific validation, and psychological awareness. Fragmentation across these domains’ risks undermining evidentiary reliability and public trust. The study thus contributes to bridging the persistent disciplinary divide by demonstrating that effective forensic governance must be simultaneously rights-based, scientifically grounded, and cognitively informed. Conclusion This research provides an integrative understanding of DNA profiling as a nexus of legal, scientific, and psychological practice within the criminal justice system (Zareef et al., 2025 ). Through qualitative thematic analysis, it reveals that while professionals across sectors recognise the transformative utility of DNA evidence, their perceptions are shaped by differing institutional priorities and epistemological frameworks. Legal actors emphasise procedural justice and human rights safeguards; forensic scientists focus on laboratory integrity and methodological transparency; investigators highlight operational efficiency; and academics foreground ethical and conceptual considerations. The overarching insight is that DNA profiling cannot be understood solely through the lens of science or law—it must be viewed as a socio-technical system requiring interdisciplinary regulation and reflexive professional culture. Policy implications include the need for harmonised legislative frameworks governing data use and retention, mandatory accreditation and quality audits for forensic laboratories, and structured training programs addressing cognitive bias, probabilistic reasoning, and ethical decision-making. By situating DNA profiling within an integrated governance model, the study advances the argument that justice is not only a matter of scientific accuracy or legal compliance, but of sustained collaboration between disciplines. In aligning legal safeguards with scientific precision and psychological awareness, criminal justice systems can better balance innovation with accountability, ensuring that the power of DNA evidence serves both truth and fairness. Declarations Author Contribution ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY CONCEPTUALIZATION, METHODLOGY, WRITING - ORIGINAL DRAFTDR. SHASHIKANT TRIPATHIINVESTIGATION, SUPERVISION, VALIDATIONDR. MANISH MISHRADATA CURATION, FORMAL ANALYSIS, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION MR. SHIVAM GUPTAPREPARED FIGURES AND TABLES DR. SMRITI ROY AND DR. RAHUL TIWARI WRITING- REVIEW & EDITING, DATA COLLECTION References Abrahamyan Empson, L., Baumann, P. S., Söderström, O., Codeluppi, Z., Söderström, D., & Conus, P. O. (2020). Urbanicity: The need for new avenues to explore the link between urban living and psychosis. Early Intervention in Psychiatry , 14 (4), 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12861 Ai, X., Smith, M. C., & Feltus, F. A. (2023). Generative adversarial networks applied to gene expression analysis: An interdisciplinary perspective. Computational and Systems Oncology , 3 (3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cso2.1050 B. Balanay Jr, S., & Teresa M. Fajardo, M. (2025). Analysis and Design of a Multidirectional Scientific Inquiry Model (MSIM) Based on Existing Inquiry-Based Tasks (IBT). American Journal of Educational Research , 13 (4), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.12691/EDUCATION-13-4-2 Bauer, B. U., Knittler, M. R., Andrack, J., Berens, C., Campe, A., Christiansen, B., Fasemore, A. M., Fischer, S. F., Ganter, M., Körner, S., Makert, G. R., Matthiesen, S., Mertens-Scholz, K., Rinkel, S., Runge, M., Schulze-Luehrmann, J., Ulbert, S., Winter, F., Frangoulidis, D., & Lührmann, A. (2023). Interdisciplinary studies on Coxiella burnetii: From molecular to cellular, to host, to one health research. International Journal of Medical Microbiology , 313 (6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2023.151590 Bechky, B. A. (2020). Evaluative Spillovers from Technological Change: The Effects of “DNA Envy” on Occupational Practices in Forensic Science. Administrative Science Quarterly , 65 (3), 606–643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219855329 Bivins, R. (2023). Pilot Programs and Postcolonial Pivots: Pioneering DNA Fingerprinting on Britain’s Borders. Comparative Studies in Society and History , 65 (2), 346–371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522000494 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology , 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology , 18 (3), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238 Carmo Rodrigues Brandão, E. C., & Fortunato Ferreira, V. (2024). THE USE OF THE DNA TESTING FOR CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES IN CRIMES AGAINST SEXUAL DIGNITY[A UTILIZAÇÃO DO EXAME DE DNA PARA FINS DE IDENTIFICAÇÃO CRIMINAL NOS CRIMES CONTRA A DIGNIDADE SEXUAL620]. Revista Eletronica de Direito Processual , 25 (3), 273–304. https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2024.86605 Chernego, D. I., Vasilyeva, M. J., & Muhamedrahimov, R. J. (2023a). The Impact of Early Institutionalization Experience on Child Development: Biological Indicators, Physiological Mechanisms, Behavioral Characteristics; Влияние раннего опыта институционализации на развитие ребенка: биологические показатели, физиологические механизмы, поведенческие характеристики. Social Psychology and Society , 14 (2), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140202 Chernego, D. I., Vasilyeva, M. J., & Muhamedrahimov, R. J. (2023b). The Impact of Early Institutionalization Experience on Child Development: Biological Indicators, Physiological Mechanisms, Behavioral Characteristics; Влияние раннего опыта институционализации на развитие ребенка: биологические показатели, физиологические механизмы, поведенческие характеристики. Social Psychology and Society , 14 (2), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140202 Chopin, J., & Beauregard, É. M. (2021a). The contribution of psychological science in police responses of sexual assaults (pp. 243–264). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816544-7.00012-7 Chopin, J., & Beauregard, É. M. (2021b). The contribution of psychological science in police responses of sexual assaults (pp. 243–264). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816544-7.00012-7 Eriksen, N., Zaimi, E., Bushati, A., Shpati, K., Myzyri, K., & Hysa, E. (2023a). The Importance of DNA Profiling from Teeth for Forensic Purposes – A Case Report. Proceedings of International Conference on Research in Education and Science , 9 (1), 2469–2480. Eriksen, N., Zaimi, E., Bushati, A., Shpati, K., Myzyri, K., & Hysa, E. (2023b). The Importance of DNA Profiling from Teeth for Forensic Purposes – A Case Report. Proceedings of International Conference on Research in Education and Science , 9 (1), 2469–2480. Ferrero, A. M., & Scotti, V. (2022). Forensic DNA Profiling. In Research for Development . https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14619-0_10 Freilich, C. D., Markon, K. E., Mann, F. D., Cole, S. W., & Krueger, R. F. (2024a). Associations Between Loneliness, Epigenetic Aging, and Multimorbidity Through Older Adulthood. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 79 (12). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae169 Freilich, C. D., Markon, K. E., Mann, F. D., Cole, S. W., & Krueger, R. F. (2024b). Associations Between Loneliness, Epigenetic Aging, and Multimorbidity Through Older Adulthood. Journals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences , 79 (12). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae169 García-Campayo, J. J., Puebla-Guedea, M., Labarga, A., Urdánoz-Casado, A., Roldan, M., Pulido, L., Martínez de Morentin, X. M., Perdones-Montero, Á., Montero-Marín, J., & Mendioroz, M. T. (2018a). Epigenetic Response to Mindfulness in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes Involves Genes Linked to Common Human Diseases. Mindfulness , 9 (4), 1146–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0851-6 García-Campayo, J. J., Puebla-Guedea, M., Labarga, A., Urdánoz-Casado, A., Roldan, M., Pulido, L., Martínez de Morentin, X. M., Perdones-Montero, Á., Montero-Marín, J., & Mendioroz, M. T. (2018b). Epigenetic Response to Mindfulness in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes Involves Genes Linked to Common Human Diseases. Mindfulness , 9 (4), 1146–1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0851-6 Gong, B., Li, D., Łabaj, P. P., Pan, B., Novoradovskaya, N., Thierry-Mieg, D., Thierry-Mieg, J., Chen, G., Bergstrom Lucas, A., LoCoco, J. S., Richmond, T. A., Tseng, E., Kusko, R. L., Happe, S., Mercer, T. R., Pabón-Peña, C. R., Salmans, M. L., Tilgner, H. U., Xiao, W., … Xu, J. (2024a). Targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq of Reference Samples with Short-read and Long-read Sequencing. Scientific Data , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03741-y Gong, B., Li, D., Łabaj, P. P., Pan, B., Novoradovskaya, N., Thierry-Mieg, D., Thierry-Mieg, J., Chen, G., Bergstrom Lucas, A., LoCoco, J. S., Richmond, T. A., Tseng, E., Kusko, R. L., Happe, S., Mercer, T. R., Pabón-Peña, C. R., Salmans, M. L., Tilgner, H. U., Xiao, W., … Xu, J. (2024b). Targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq of Reference Samples with Short-read and Long-read Sequencing. Scientific Data , 11 (1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03741-y Hartshorne, D., Roeder, A. D., Elsmore, P., McDonald, A., & Greenham, J. (2024). The Challenges of Introducing Massively Parallel Sequencing into the UK Forensic Market (pp. 219–237). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_10 Jia, Y., Nithianandam, P., Liu, T., & Li, J. (2023). Development of Wearable Chemical Sensors: An Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Laboratory Experiment Facilitating Knowledge and Expertise Integration. Journal of Chemical Education , 100 (9), 3595–3603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00379 Kaur, S., Kujur, M., Rawat, B., Upadhyaya, M., & Varshney, K. C. (2022). Journey of unidentified bodies towards DNA identification: A social, medico-legal and forensic perspective from New Delhi in India. Forensic Science International , 341 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111470 Kotze, M. J., Grant, K. A., van der Merwe, N. C., Barsdorf, N. W., & Kruger, M. (2024). Navigating ethical challenges of integrating genomic medicine into clinical practice: Maximising beneficence in precision oncology. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law , 17 (1). https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.2071 Lopez Toribio, R. M., Castaneda Eugenio, N. E., & Manrique de Lara Suare, D. A. (2024). Association between forensic DNA and odontology in human identification during mass disaster: a systematic review. Russian Journal of Forensic Medicine , 10 (3), 372–397. https://doi.org/10.17816/fm16148 Mal’chenkova, A. A., & Kosobokova, E. N. (2024). Artifacts of analysis in cell line identification by short tandem repeat profiling; Артефакты анализа при идентификации клеточных линий методом профилирования на основе коротких тандемных повторов. Cardiovascular Therapy and Prevention (Russian Federation) , 23 (11), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2024-4121 Medina-Paz, F., Castagnola, M. J., Yukhno, V., Ulloa, D., Stadler, C., Roca, G., & C. Zapico, S. (2025). The washing away of evidence: The effect of different washing treatments on body fluid identification and DNA profiling from stained clothing fabrics. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine , 113 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102893 Montelius, K., Stenersen, M., & Sajantila, A. (2024a). Disaster Victim Management: DNA Identification (Vol. 2, pp. V2-266). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00134-5 Montelius, K., Stenersen, M., & Sajantila, A. (2024b). Disaster Victim Management: DNA Identification (Vol. 2, pp. V2-266). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00134-5 Prainsack, B., & Samuel, G. N. (2022). THE STAKES OF FORENSIC PHENOTYPIC PROFILING: Can solidarity help? (pp. 201–216). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429322358-16 Pullen-Blasnik, H., Eyal, G., & Weissenbach, A. (2024a). ‘Is your accuser me, or is it the software?’ Ambiguity and contested expertise in probabilistic DNA profiling. Social Studies of Science , 54 (1), 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231186646 Pullen-Blasnik, H., Eyal, G., & Weissenbach, A. (2024b). ‘Is your accuser me, or is it the software?’ Ambiguity and contested expertise in probabilistic DNA profiling. Social Studies of Science , 54 (1), 30–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231186646 Satoh, T., Kutsuwada, Y., Inokuchi, S., Ishida, T., Ikeda, T., Hirota, R., Kuroda, A., Matsumura, K., & Iwase, S. (2024). Application of bioluminescence assay to assess PCR carryover contamination in forensic DNA laboratories. Forensic Chemistry , 38 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2024.100566 Sessa, F., Chisari, M., Esposito, M., Karaboue, M. A. A., Salerno, M., & Cocimano, G. (2025). Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Regarding Forensic Genetic Investigations (FGIs). Journal of Academic Ethics . https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09582-z Shaw, I. C., & Sandiford, A. (2024a). Forensic science: The science behind the truth (pp. 1–348). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837670406 Shaw, I. C., & Sandiford, A. (2024b). Forensic science: The science behind the truth (pp. 1–348). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837670406 Short, S. (2024). Serology: Blood Identification (Vol. 4, pp. V4-238). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00227-2 Spicer, J. (2023). FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY IN DEATH INVESTIGATIONS (pp. 132–149). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195283-13 Terry, M. B. E., & Colditz, G. A. (2023). Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: 21st Century Advances, Gaps to Address through Interdisciplinary Science. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine , 13 (9). https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041317 van Oorschot, I., & M’charek, A. (2021). Keeping race at bay: familial DNA research, the ‘Turkish Community,’ and the pragmatics of multiple collectives in investigative practice. BioSocieties , 16 (4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00246-4 Ward, J., Watherston, J., Kahline, I. L., McMahon, T. P., & Edson, S. M. (2022). Genotyping and sequencing of DNA recovered from human skeletal remains using capillary electrophoresis (CE) (pp. 285–323). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815766-4.00014-5 Zareef, I., Rathore, A. W., Zaheen, U., Riaz, A., Rakha, A., & Munawar, A. (2025). A model research study on persistence, recovery and analysis of trace DNA under fingernails of drowned bodies. Forensic Science International , 377 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112649 Zerbe, S. (2023). Restoration of Ecosystems - Bridging Nature and Humans: A Transdisciplinary Approach (pp. 1–723). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65658-7 Zeye, M. M. J., Ouedraogo, S. Y., Millogo, M., Djigma, F. W., Zoure, A. A., Zeba, M., Palenfo, R., Dakio, N., Zaongo, S. D., Wu, X., & Simpore, J. (2024). Forensic DNA database and criminal investigation in the Sahel region: a need to update the national security policy? Forensic Sciences Research , 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad056 Zeye, M. M. J., Ouédraogo, S. Y., Millogo, M., Djigma, F. W., Zouré, A. A., Zeba, M. T. A., Palenfo, R., Dakio, N., Zaongo, S. D., Wu, L., & Simpore, J. (2024). Forensic DNA database and criminal investigation in the Sahel region: a need to update the national security policy? Forensic Sciences Research , 9 (2). https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad056 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7938565","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":538642793,"identity":"6a2c495c-26d6-465d-a752-dc114a2c1d5a","order_by":0,"name":"ABHAY KUMAR PANDEY Research Scholar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"ABHAY","middleName":"KUMAR PANDEY Research","lastName":"Scholar","suffix":""},{"id":538642794,"identity":"def087d8-7955-46aa-89aa-e48faf023e11","order_by":1,"name":"Dr. Shashikant Tripathi Associate Professor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Shashikant","middleName":"Tripathi Associate","lastName":"Professor","suffix":""},{"id":538642795,"identity":"a161610d-4ae0-4dec-89c2-e42f2b8f9c66","order_by":2,"name":"Dr. Manish Mishra Assistant Professor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Dr. D.Y. Patil B-School, Tathawade","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Manish","middleName":"Mishra Assistant","lastName":"Professor","suffix":""},{"id":538642796,"identity":"d26cd3d0-0790-4ba3-ab13-c44db78b4bf9","order_by":3,"name":"Mr. Shivam Gupta Research Scholar","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Maharshi University Of Information Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Mr.","firstName":"Shivam","middleName":"Gupta Research","lastName":"Scholar","suffix":""},{"id":538642797,"identity":"bf22ce63-ec40-44c4-a32b-b326255ed8a9","order_by":4,"name":"Dr Smriti Roy Assistant Professor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr","firstName":"Smriti","middleName":"Roy Assistant","lastName":"Professor","suffix":""},{"id":538642798,"identity":"3a56d418-cc76-425e-b6dd-bb5228e471db","order_by":5,"name":"Dr. Rahul Tiwari Assistant Professor","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"Dr.","firstName":"Rahul","middleName":"Tiwari Assistant","lastName":"Professor","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-10-24 08:38:30","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":95525386,"identity":"ff0ee0fa-a76a-490c-8776-cc969fbe2ec5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:04:57","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":588772,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Manuscript.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/2b5321b36102654de4d6c873.docx"},{"id":95382983,"identity":"a2393896-4c27-4efe-afbd-aaf12c738a11","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7777,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4150a769bad0428f948283cce4aedcd0.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/a61a339c26ca17a84ed411f2.json"},{"id":95382986,"identity":"b33cd5bb-6d28-407a-bafe-d9e66f1c1039","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":152117,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4150a769bad0428f948283cce4aedcd01enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/11df7b44d075e2ebc4e3ea76.xml"},{"id":95382989,"identity":"04c36c7d-db6d-49b0-ba25-d089738ee5ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":113357,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/f2114ee2c5807a05b6973abf.png"},{"id":95526163,"identity":"89a1e66f-5fa6-493d-a351-3a14239165da","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:26","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":126712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/8db0dd38635f1630bf82db19.png"},{"id":95525365,"identity":"119a90ac-05cf-4490-aa00-a788735861bd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:04:53","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93947,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/87157dfbf4a38aec2d308a63.png"},{"id":95382987,"identity":"782a3bd1-474b-405b-bee9-64f3eae929d6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16636,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/909465fc12e233dc0f4465a3.jpeg"},{"id":95382993,"identity":"8af76548-9b83-42d9-b8dd-ad91ac90e6ec","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":67539,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/70208467b618dba6aa49842a.png"},{"id":95382994,"identity":"ccec145d-1b29-4cdd-bf3d-05b4f6d5631d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":50110,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/42c6801c47bd6a55c71ffff2.png"},{"id":95525360,"identity":"8e02b2b1-9d50-446a-bb76-71b1794aacc2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:04:53","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":31329,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/8a1af36671a6e1c6e29166e7.png"},{"id":95382995,"identity":"6726f33e-46d7-4a6a-8fe8-ce76e11d619f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5934,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/4d3d66de5d5a77dedc947d3f.png"},{"id":95382996,"identity":"eb30a29b-7097-4268-bc96-b44a8e9ba35c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"xml","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":154940,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"4150a769bad0428f948283cce4aedcd01structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/ff741dbb8dc9c5f243046228.xml"},{"id":95382997,"identity":"506aeb72-fe67-4ed5-93f3-0c7df8032d4d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"html","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":161385,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/710151eb0116dba6718811e4.html"},{"id":95526562,"identity":"76b4fc05-e891-4f6f-a981-574dc428ec12","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:07:16","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79762,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistribution of Participants by Profession\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/f4f093f57d85026192f60122.jpg"},{"id":95382979,"identity":"8c078e94-9443-42c8-9781-37775de3d1df","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101209,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistribution of Participants by Professional Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/dba68b1d4075c8e0eba9191f.jpg"},{"id":95526378,"identity":"75bccb99-3dd5-466c-9f46-8f9bcb8aa9fe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:06:53","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":89385,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 4. Matrix Coding Query: Profession X Themes (Radar View)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/d3332f4307b90007284d15ab.jpg"},{"id":95382980,"identity":"633a0967-56f7-443d-aedf-002073ffd408","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":125832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 5- Word Frequency Cloud of Participant Narratives\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/24de4762a85d90e504947231.jpg"},{"id":95525756,"identity":"8fcac107-cff8-4e18-acea-4344ed21ce85","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-10 10:05:39","extension":"jpg","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":119417,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6 Tree Map of Thematic Coding in NVivo 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"6.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/a7af6c97def5106135f6c21c.jpg"},{"id":95382992,"identity":"c12085cc-02c0-4694-b0d3-e1a52735cbcb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-07 12:19:52","extension":"jpg","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35037,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 6 Cluster Analysis of Thematic Relationships\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"7.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/bb13415d07ed12e4999ddf6d.jpg"},{"id":97436362,"identity":"cfdabd1b-bee3-4f0c-9ceb-b52f7e1c2ada","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-04 11:09:19","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1772826,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7938565/v1/a200e933-00e6-4dfc-b8da-de0464dbc1cc.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"DNA Profiling and Investigative Decision-Making: Legal, Scientific and Psychological Perspectives in the Criminal Justice System","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eSince its introduction to criminal investigation in the mid-1980s, DNA profiling has fundamentally reshaped how law enforcement agencies, courts, and the public perceive forensic evidence (Bechky, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). The technique\u0026rsquo;s capacity to link individuals to biological material with a high degree of statistical confidence has given investigators an unprecedented ability to connect suspects to crime scenes, identify unknown victims, and resolve cold cases (Kotze et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Its role in exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals has further cemented DNA profiling\u0026rsquo;s reputation as an objective and transformative tool within the justice system. Today, the presence or absence of DNA evidence can profoundly influence the trajectory of an investigation, the strategies of prosecution and defence, and ultimately, judicial outcomes (Shaw \u0026amp; Sandiford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study positions DNA profiling not simply as a laboratory process, but as a pivotal point of intersection between law, science, and human decision-making (Ferrero \u0026amp; Scotti, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). It examines how legal frameworks shape permissible uses of DNA technology, how scientific practices influence reliability and interpretation, and how psychological factors within investigative settings mediate the evidentiary and strategic value of DNA results. By integrating these perspectives, the analysis offers a more comprehensive account of DNA profiling\u0026rsquo;s role in investigative decision-making and highlights pathways for policy reform, practice improvement, and the strengthening of public trust (Gong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite its promise, the operationalisation of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system is far from straightforward (Montelius et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). The value of DNA evidence is contingent upon multiple interconnected factors: the legality and ethics of its collection and retention, the scientific rigour of its analysis, and the psychological and organisational processes through which it is interpreted and acted upon. Each of these domains legal, scientific, and psychological shapes the extent to which DNA profiling contributes to fair, efficient, and accurate case resolution. Without careful governance and a clear understanding of these interdependencies, there is a risk that DNA evidence may be overvalued, misinterpreted, or deployed in ways that undermine rather than enhance justice (Pullen-Blasnik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFrom a legal standpoint, DNA profiling engages complex questions about privacy, consent, proportionality, and the scope of state power. Jurisdictions vary widely in their statutory frameworks regulating who may be compelled to provide a DNA sample, how long profiles may be retained, and the purposes for which they may be used. National and regional courts have set important precedents on issues such as mass retention, access to databases, and the use of investigative techniques such as familial searching and forensic genetic genealogy (Spicer, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). These emerging practices, along with rapid DNA technology and cross-border database sharing, challenge existing legal structures and highlight the need for laws that are both technologically informed and grounded in human rights protections (Zareef et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe scientific dimension of DNA profiling is governed by stringent standards of laboratory practice, including accreditation, validation, and quality assurance. Advances in molecular biology, probabilistic genotyping, and high-throughput sequencing have expanded the scope and sensitivity of DNA analysis (Pullen-Blasnik et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). Yet these advances also introduce new interpretative complexities, particularly when dealing with mixed, degraded, or low-template samples. Statistical models underpinning the interpretation of such evidence must be transparent, validated, and clearly communicated to investigators, courts, and, where applicable, juries. Even when the laboratory analysis is scientifically sound, errors can occur in collection, handling, or interpretation, underscoring the importance of robust contamination control, chain-of-custody integrity, and independent review (Lopez Toribio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEqually critical are the psychological and organisational factors that determine how DNA evidence is used in practice. Investigators and prosecutors must decide which samples to collect, which to submit for analysis, and how to integrate results into broader case strategies. These decisions are susceptible to cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, tunnel vision, and misinterpretation of statistical probabilities (Kaur et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The so-called \u0026ldquo;CSI effect,\u0026rdquo; whereby jurors expect definitive forensic evidence in every case, can also influence charging decisions, plea negotiations, and trial strategies. Training in evidence interpretation, statistical reasoning, and cognitive debiasing is therefore essential, not only for forensic scientists but also for investigators, lawyers, and judicial officers who rely on DNA evidence in their decision-making (Hartshorne et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExisting scholarship on DNA profiling often addresses these domains in isolation. Legal analyses tend to focus on statutory interpretation, case law, and privacy rights, while scientific studies emphasise methodological validation, laboratory error rates, and technological innovation (Short, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). Research in investigative psychology explores decision-making processes and biases but rarely examines DNA profiling as a distinct evidentiary context with unique features and challenges. This compartmentalisation has resulted in a fragmented understanding of how DNA profiling operates within real-world criminal investigations. There remains a need for integrated research that bridges legal, scientific, and psychological perspectives, situating DNA profiling within the complex socio-technical systems of modern criminal justice (Zeye, Ou\u0026eacute;draogo, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe significance of such an integrated approach is underscored by the increasing diversity of contexts in which DNA profiling is applied. From high-profile homicide investigations to volume crime and historical cold cases, DNA evidence is expected to deliver not only technical accuracy but also investigative value, legal defensibility, and public legitimacy (Montelius et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). The way in which agencies manage DNA profiling through legal compliance, scientific best practice, and psychologically informed investigative processes can determine whether its potential is realised or compromised. Moreover, differences in investigative readiness across jurisdictions and organisations mean that not all agencies are equally equipped to deploy DNA evidence effectively. Assessing and enhancing that readiness requires a multidisciplinary, qualitative approach, combining legal doctrinal analysis with insights from forensic science and investigative psychology (Eriksen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe academic and practitioner literature on DNA profiling is extensive, reflecting the method\u0026rsquo;s transformative role in contemporary criminal justice (van Oorschot \u0026amp; M\u0026rsquo;charek, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). However, most contributions remain bounded by disciplinary perspectives: legal scholars focus on rights and regulation, forensic scientists on laboratory validation and methodology, and psychologists on decision-making processes and bias. This segmentation has limited the emergence of a genuinely integrated understanding of DNA profiling as it is operationalised in real investigative environments (Ward et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). An interdisciplinary synthesis is needed to capture the interplay between legal frameworks, scientific standards, and psychological influences, all of which determine the evidentiary value and societal impact of DNA profiling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLegal Frameworks and Governance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal scholarship on DNA profiling has grown alongside the expansion of national DNA databases and the routine admission of genetic evidence in courts. Statutory regimes in jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and the European Union vary in their thresholds for compulsory sampling, retention limits, and permissible uses (Prainsack \u0026amp; Samuel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The UK\u0026rsquo;s Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and subsequent amendments, including the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, illustrate a shift from broad retention powers to more proportionate approaches after the European Court of Human Rights decision in S and Marper v United Kingdom (2008), which held that indefinite retention of DNA from unconvicted persons breached the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR (Carmo Rodrigues Brand\u0026atilde;o \u0026amp; Fortunato Ferreira, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the United States, constitutional scrutiny has produced a different trajectory. In Maryland v King (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld DNA collection from arrestees for serious crimes, framing it as akin to fingerprinting during booking. This reasoning reflects the Fourth Amendment\u0026rsquo;s search-and-seizure doctrine and a balancing of law enforcement needs with individual privacy. Other common law jurisdictions, such as Canada (DNA Identification Act 1998) and New Zealand (Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995), have adopted more targeted frameworks that require judicial authorisation for certain categories of sampling (Medina-Paz et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAt the supranational level, instruments such as the EU\u0026rsquo;s Pr\u0026uuml;m Decisions facilitate cross-border DNA data exchange, raising issues of harmonisation, data protection, and sovereignty. INTERPOL\u0026rsquo;s DNA Gateway provides another platform for international cooperation, albeit operating on policy rather than binding treaty law. The growing adoption of rapid DNA technology, investigative genetic genealogy (IGG), and forensic phenotyping has intensified debates over governance, as these techniques frequently emerge faster than legislative reform. Many jurisdictions rely on internal policy directives or prosecutorial guidelines to govern their use, creating legal grey areas and inconsistencies in practice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eScientific Standards and Methodological Developments\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe forensic science literature documents both the strengths and vulnerabilities of DNA profiling. Short tandem repeat (STR) analysis, typically via capillary electrophoresis, has been the cornerstone of DNA profiling for over two decades and is widely accepted in courts due to its high discriminating power and robust validation record (Sessa et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). However, real-world evidence often departs from ideal laboratory conditions. Low-template samples, environmentally degraded material, or mixtures from multiple contributors introduce interpretative complexity through stochastic effects such as allele drop-out and drop-in (Zeye, Ouedraogo, et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these challenges, probabilistic genotyping (PG) software packages such as STRmix, TrueAllele, and Lab Retriever have become increasingly prevalent (Shaw \u0026amp; Sandiford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). These systems use Bayesian models to calculate likelihood ratios for complex mixtures, reducing subjectivity and improving reproducibility. While validation studies demonstrate their scientific robustness, their proprietary nature raises legal questions about transparency and the defence\u0026rsquo;s right to examine algorithms under disclosure obligations. Some courts, particularly in the U.S., have seen challenges to admissibility based on restricted access to source code, underscoring the interface between science and due process (Gong et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuality assurance and accreditation under standards such as ISO/IEC 17025 remain essential safeguards. Oversight bodies, including the UK Forensic Science Regulator and the U.S (Bivins, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). National Institute of Standards and Technology, have reported incidents of contamination, mislabelling, and human error reminders that even technically sound methods can be compromised by operational lapses. Chain-of-custody integrity, contamination control, and independent auditing are therefore central to maintaining evidentiary reliability (Satoh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmerging technologies such as next-generation sequencing (NGS) and rapid DNA devices are reshaping the field. NGS can recover more information from degraded samples and provide phenotypic or biogeographical ancestry indicators (Mal\u0026rsquo;chenkova \u0026amp; Kosobokova, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While potentially valuable for generating investigative leads, these methods raise heightened privacy and ethical concerns, especially when they draw on non-criminal reference datasets, as in the Golden State Killer investigation. The scientific community continues to debate validation protocols, reporting standards, and the boundaries of permissible use (Eriksen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePsychological Factors in Interpretation and Use\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe human factors literature, while less voluminous than legal and scientific analyses, reveals that DNA profiling is deeply influenced by cognitive and organisational processes ( Freilich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). Cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, contextual bias, and anchoring can subtly affect decisions about which samples to collect, how ambiguous results are interpreted, and how statistical findings are framed for investigators and courts (Garc\u0026iacute;a-Campayo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInvestigative psychology research shows that the presence of DNA evidence can anchor case hypotheses, sometimes prematurely narrowing the scope of inquiry (Freilich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). When results are treated as categorical rather than probabilistic, tunnel vision can occur, excluding alternative suspects or interpretations. This risk is compounded by the \u0026ldquo;CSI effect,\u0026rdquo; in which jurors and sometimes prosecutors expect forensic evidence in all serious cases, influencing charging decisions and plea negotiations (Chernego et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmpirical studies on juror comprehension demonstrate that probabilistic statements\u0026mdash;particularly likelihood ratios are often misunderstood. (Garc\u0026iacute;a-Campayo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018b\u003c/span\u003e) found that even when statistical concepts were simplified, misinterpretation persisted, with some jurors inappropriately equating a likelihood ratio with a posterior probability of guilt. These findings highlight the importance of expert testimony that is both scientifically accurate and linguistically accessible (Chopin \u0026amp; Beauregard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021a\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome laboratories and police services have adopted bias mitigation measures, including sequential unmasking (where analysts receive case information in stages to minimise contextual influence) and the use of case managers to shield forensic scientists from investigative theories (Chernego et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023b\u003c/span\u003e). However, such measures are not uniformly implemented, and their effectiveness in DNA-specific contexts remains under-studied. This gap reflects the limited integration of cognitive science findings into forensic operational protocols (Chopin \u0026amp; Beauregard, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021b\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInterdisciplinary Gaps\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA review across these domains reveals a persistent lack of integration (Jia et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Legal analyses may not account for the operational and cognitive realities of forensic practice; scientific research often assumes that validated methods will be applied in ideal conditions, without recognising the variability of investigative environments; and psychological studies on bias rarely engage with the specific statistical and interpretative challenges unique to DNA profiling (Zerbe, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consequences of this fragmentation are evident in practice (Abrahamyan Empson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, legal authorisation for mass DNA screening may exist on paper, but operational capacity limits or community mistrust can render such powers ineffective. Similarly, the introduction of probabilistic genotyping has, in some jurisdictions, outpaced courtroom readiness, leading to challenges over admissibility and disclosure that could have been mitigated by earlier interdisciplinary dialogue (Terry \u0026amp; Colditz, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHigh-level reviews, such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2009) report and inquiries by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, have repeatedly called for greater integration of legal oversight, scientific best practice, and bias-reduction strategies (Bauer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e). Despite these recommendations, implementation remains uneven, and no jurisdiction appears to have fully embedded cross-disciplinary governance mechanisms for DNA profiling (Ai et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study positions itself within this interdisciplinary gap. By synthesising legal, scientific, and psychological perspectives, it aims to capture the socio-technical complexity of DNA profiling in real investigative contexts. Such an integrated approach is essential to developing policies and practices that not only enhance evidentiary value but also protect fairness, rights, and public trust.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study adopted a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivist epistemology, aiming to explore how professionals across legal, scientific, and investigative domains perceive and operationalise DNA profiling in criminal justice contexts. The qualitative approach was chosen to capture the complexity and contextual depth of human decision-making, which cannot be adequately represented through quantitative metrics alone. Drawing on the methodological principles articulated by (B. Balanay Jr \u0026amp; Teresa M. Fajardo, 2025), the research was designed to elicit rich, experiential data that reflect the social, procedural, and cognitive realities surrounding DNA evidence. The central assumption guiding this design was that meaning emerges through participants lived experiences and professional discourse, rather than through numerical aggregation or experimental control.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData were collected through semi-structured focus group discussions, enabling a balance between thematic consistency and conversational openness. This format allowed participants to articulate their professional experiences while interacting with peers from other domains, thereby revealing the interdisciplinary dynamics at play in the interpretation and use of DNA evidence. Three principal professional categories were purposively selected: legal practitioners (including judges, prosecutors, and defence counsel), forensic scientists engaged in laboratory analysis and policy oversight, and investigative professionals responsible for evidence collection and case management. This purposive sampling ensured the inclusion of participants who possessed both technical expertise and practical engagement with DNA profiling in real casework. Participants were required to have a minimum of three years’ relevant professional experience and direct involvement in at least one case in which DNA evidence played a material role. Recruitment was facilitated through professional networks, bar associations, forensic science institutions, and law enforcement agencies. A total of seventeen professionals participated in the study, reflecting a diverse yet balanced representation of roles and experience levels within the justice system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach focus group was conducted in a neutral, confidential setting conducive to open dialogue. Sessions lasted between ninety and one hundred and twenty minutes and followed a semi-structured guide encompassing four thematic domains: legal authority and safeguards for DNA collection, scientific validity and methodological reliability, cognitive and organisational influences on decision-making, and interprofessional communication. The researcher adopted a facilitative role, encouraging reflexive discussion while maintaining thematic focus. All sessions were audio-recorded with prior informed consent, transcribed verbatim, and anonymised to protect participant identity and confidentiality. Ethical clearance was obtained from the host institution’s ethics review committee prior to data collection, and participants were briefed on their rights to withdraw at any time without penalty.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eData analysis followed (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) framework for thematic analysis, integrating both inductive and deductive coding strategies. Inductive codes emerged from participants’ narratives, reflecting naturally occurring language and professional discourse, while deductive codes were informed by the study’s guiding research questions and existing theoretical literature on legal governance, forensic methodology, and cognitive bias. Coding and categorisation were conducted using NVivo 14 software (Braun \u0026amp; Clarke, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e), which facilitated systematic organisation, retrieval, and comparison of data across professional groups and thematic domains. To enhance the interpretive rigour of the analysis, particular attention was paid to patterns of convergence and divergence across professions, highlighting how legal, scientific, and psychological factors interact within real-world investigative contexts. Analytical memos were maintained throughout to document reflexive insights and evolving interpretive reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReliability and validity within this qualitative framework were approached through transparency, reflexivity, and methodological coherence rather than through statistical generalisability. The researcher maintained a reflexive journal to record positionality, assumptions, and potential biases throughout the process. The iterative cycle of data collection and analysis allowed emerging insights to shape subsequent questioning and interpretation, consistent with Creswell’s conception of qualitative inquiry as an evolving, contextually grounded process. The methodological integrity of the study rests on the systematic, transparent, and theoretically informed approach to both data generation and interpretation, ensuring that findings authentically reflect participants lived realities while contributing to broader scholarly and policy debates on the governance and use of DNA profiling in criminal justice.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Result","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of this qualitative inquiry present an integrated analysis of the perspectives of seventeen professionals representing diverse domains of the criminal justice system, including law, forensic science, policing, and research. Data from the semi-structured focus groups were systematically coded and analysed using NVivo 14, generating five overarching thematic categories: \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal and Governance Frameworks\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eOutcomes\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ePsychological and Organisational Factors\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eAccreditation and Standards\u003c/em\u003e. These parent codes encapsulate the multidimensional influences shaping the operationalisation and interpretation of DNA profiling in investigative and judicial contexts. The findings are presented through a series of tables and visualisations derived from matrix coding queries, coding summaries, and case classifications. Together, these outputs illustrate both the breadth and depth of professional engagement with DNA profiling, revealing patterns of convergence and divergence across occupational groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Overall, the data highlight that while participants uniformly recognised the transformative potential of DNA profiling, their evaluations of its legitimacy, reliability, and ethical governance varied markedly according to professional role and experience. Legal professionals tended to foreground procedural safeguards and privacy concerns; forensic scientists emphasised methodological rigour and accreditation; police participants discussed investigative utility and operational challenges; and students or early-career researchers reflected on educational and conceptual understanding. The following subsections detail these thematic findings, integrating descriptive and visual analyses to illustrate how each professional group conceptualised the evidentiary, ethical, and psychological dimensions of DNA profiling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe demographic distribution captured in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e demonstrates a strategically diverse participant pool encompassing multiple nodes of the criminal justice ecosystem. The inclusion of senior police officers, forensic scientists, and members of the judiciary provided deep institutional insights into the operational realities of DNA profiling, while students and early-career researchers contributed reflective, theory-driven perspectives grounded in emerging academic discourse. This heterogeneity enriched the analytical scope, ensuring that interpretations of DNA profiling extended beyond a purely legal or scientific lens to incorporate educational and ethical dimensions as well.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe presence of participants with more than fifteen years of experience, particularly in policing and the judiciary, offered longitudinal viewpoints on the evolution of DNA technologies and procedural law in India. Conversely, the large representation of early-career respondents reflects the growing curricular and professional attention toward forensic law and investigative science. Together, this balance of professional maturity and academic curiosity supports data triangulation within the qualitative framework, lending robustness and authenticity to the thematic analysis that follows. The diversity in background thus became an analytical strength, allowing cross-comparison of how professional orientation influences perceptions of reliability, admissibility, and ethical stewardship of DNA evidence.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant Demographics and Professional Background\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eYears of Experience\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional Position\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10–15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForensic Scientist\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP11\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5–10 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhD Scholar\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP13\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP14\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP15\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10–15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice Officer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP16\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore than 15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice Officer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP17\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10–15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate Detective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10–15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLawyer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore than 15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice Officer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMore than 15 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJudge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhD Scholar\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eP9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e0–5 Years\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFigure 1. Distribution of Participants by Profession\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis bar chart illustrates the professional distribution of participants in the study. The largest group comprised students and early-career researchers, followed by police officers, legal professionals, and a smaller number of forensic scientists and private investigators. The diverse representation ensures comprehensive insights into both the scientific and legal dimensions of DNA profiling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe case classification summary in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e reveals a participant composition that mirrors the multidimensional structure of the criminal justice system. The predominance of students and early-career researchers (n = 8) signifies a strong academic and developmental orientation in the sample, capturing the perspectives of future practitioners and scholars who will shape forthcoming debates on forensic governance and evidentiary ethics. Their views provide valuable insight into how emerging professionals conceptualise DNA profiling within evolving legal-scientific frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eExperienced practitioners, including police officers (n = 3), legal professionals (judge = 1; lawyer = 1), and forensic scientists (n = 1), contributed grounded, practice-based reflections informed by direct operational engagement with DNA evidence. The presence of a private detective adds a unique investigative viewpoint from outside formal institutional boundaries, offering insight into how private sector actors interpret and utilise forensic information. Collectively, this cross-section enhances the ecological validity of the findings, ensuring that the thematic analysis integrates both systemic and individual perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe distribution also suggests the expanding reach of DNA profiling discourse beyond traditional forensic laboratories and courtrooms into academic and private domains. This indicates a democratisation of forensic literacy—where future practitioners, scholars, and independent investigators are increasingly aware of both the scientific capabilities and the ethical-legal responsibilities associated with DNA technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCase Classification Summary (Profession-wise Grouping)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfessional Position\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCount of Participant\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForensic Scientist\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJudge\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLawyer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePhD Scholar\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice Officer\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate Detective\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudent\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eTotal\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e17\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFigure 2. Distribution of Participants by Professional Group\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis figure shows the distribution of participants according to their professional background, highlighting the dominance of student and research participants alongside experienced practitioners from law enforcement, legal, and forensic domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe coding distribution presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e highlights the dominance of Legal and Governance concerns within the collective discourse of participants, accounting for the highest proportion of coded references (31%). This thematic prominence underscores the persistent anxiety among professionals about the adequacy of existing legislative and procedural safeguards surrounding DNA profiling. Participants repeatedly questioned the coherence of statutory frameworks, the proportionality of state power in collecting and retaining genetic material, and the absence of consistent cross-border standards. These findings echo broader scholarly concerns about the legal lag behind technological advancement in forensic genetics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second most salient category, Emerging Technologies (27.5%), demonstrates growing professional engagement with innovations such as phenotyping, rapid DNA analysis, and familial searching. While many participants acknowledged the investigative value of these techniques, there was a parallel expression of ethical unease—particularly regarding data privacy, consent, and the potential misuse of publicly available genetic databases.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes (19.6%) represented a mid-range theme, reflecting respondents’ nuanced views on how DNA evidence influences case outcomes, judicial reasoning, and public confidence in the justice system. Participants recognised its probative power but warned against its overvaluation in the absence of contextual corroboration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThemes related to Psychological and Organisational factors (15.8%) revealed the human dimension of forensic practice, with discussions focused on cognitive bias, misinterpretation of statistical probabilities, and inadequate training in evidentiary reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, Accreditation and Standards (6.1%)—though least referenced—emerged as a technically significant concern, particularly among forensic practitioners. Calls for greater compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 standards and transparent validation of probabilistic genotyping tools illustrate the need for uniform quality assurance mechanisms across laboratories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCollectively, the distribution demonstrates that professionals view DNA profiling not merely as a technical process, but as a legally and ethically embedded practice requiring governance reform, interdisciplinary training, and enhanced institutional accountability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoding Summary by Node\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eParent Code (Theme)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNumber of References\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCoverage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInterpretation Summary\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmerging Technologies (Phenotyping, Familial Searching, Rapid DNA)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e165\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e27.50%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMost participants discussed how new technologies challenge current law, particularly around privacy and admissibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance (Admissibility, Due Process, Privacy, Cross-Border)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e190\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31.00%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eDominant theme — respondents emphasised weak legislative safeguards, lack of uniformity, and cross-border data issues.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes (Courtroom Impact, Investigative Value, Public Trust)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e120\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e19.60%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStrong views on how DNA affects judicial decisions, investigation quality, and public perception of justice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychological \u0026amp; Organisational (Cognitive Bias, Training, Decision-Making)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e95\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e15.80%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRecurrent concerns about bias, lack of training, and overreliance on DNA in investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccreditation \u0026amp; Standards (ISO, Probabilistic Genotyping, Contamination)\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e42\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6.10%\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeast mentioned theme; discussion centred on the need for ISO standards and lab accreditation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ch3\u003eThematic Variation Across Professional Groups\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe cross-professional distribution of thematic references in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e reveals meaningful variation in how different occupational groups perceive and prioritise issues surrounding DNA profiling. Judges and lawyers demonstrated the strongest engagement with \u003cem\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/em\u003e concerns (n = 12), reflecting their central role in adjudicating admissibility, chain-of-custody integrity, and due-process compliance. Their emphasis on legislative consistency and evidentiary safeguards underscores an enduring concern that scientific advancement has outpaced procedural law.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice officers \u003cb\u003es\u003c/b\u003ehowed comparatively high reference counts in \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e (n = 9) and \u003cem\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/em\u003e (n = 10), indicating a dual focus on operational utility and regulatory boundaries. Their discussions often balanced enthusiasm for rapid-DNA systems and database interoperability with recognition of the legal vulnerabilities created by insufficient authorisation and documentation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eForensic scientists exhibited the most balanced thematic profile across all five domains, contributing substantially to \u003cem\u003eOutcomes\u003c/em\u003e (n = 10) and \u003cem\u003eAccreditation \u0026amp; Standards\u003c/em\u003e (n = 7). This even distribution reflects their bridging position between laboratory practice and judicial application—emphasising the need for methodological transparency, ISO/IEC 17025 compliance, and clearer communication of probabilistic results to non-scientific stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents and early-career researchers concentrated mainly on \u003cem\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/em\u003e (n = 8) and \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e (n = 6), suggesting an academic curiosity toward ethical and policy debates but less practical engagement with procedural or organisational realities. Their responses often expressed awareness of privacy risks yet limited familiarity with operational constraints such as chain-of-custody or accreditation frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate investigators, though few in number, contributed modestly across all categories, with particular reference to \u003cem\u003ePsychological \u0026amp; Organisational\u003c/em\u003e issues (n = 3). Their comments highlighted how investigative independence and limited access to accredited laboratories can shape evidentiary strategy in private or civil contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the matrix demonstrates a profession-specific stratification of concern: legal practitioners anchor debates in rights and procedure, police and forensic scientists emphasise operational reliability and innovation, and students or private actors engage more theoretically. These variations collectively reinforce the study’s broader conclusion—that the governance and interpretation of DNA profiling are not purely technical matters but are deeply embedded in each profession’s institutional logic, epistemic culture, and ethical responsibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e— Matrix Coding Query: Profession X Themes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eProfession / Theme\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eOutcomes\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePsychological \u0026amp; Organisational\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccreditation \u0026amp; Standards\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eJudges/Lawyers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolice\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eForensic Scientists\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents/Researchers\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrivate Investigators\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFigure 4. Matrix Coding Query: Profession X Themes (Radar View)\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRadar chart showing the distribution of coding references for five thematic domains across professional groups. Each axis represents a theme, and each coloured polygon represents one profession’s engagement level. Judges/Lawyers and Police show stronger emphasis on \u003cem\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, while Students/Researchers and Private Investigators demonstrate relatively lower thematic intensity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eWord Frequency Cloud of Participant Narratives\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe word frequency cloud (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) provides a visual overview of the linguistic landscape that emerged from the focus group discussions. Dominant terms such as “DNA,” “evidence,” “profiling,” “law,” “privacy,” “investigation,” “court,” and “technology” appear prominently, underscoring the central preoccupations of participants across all professional categories. The recurrent co-occurrence of \u003cem\u003e“law”\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e“privacy”\u003c/em\u003e reflects sustained concern over data protection, legal proportionality, and procedural safeguards, particularly among judicial and legal participants. Similarly, the frequent appearance of \u003cem\u003e“technology,” “testing,”\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e“database”\u003c/em\u003e highlights the influence of scientific advancement and operational innovation on professional perceptions of forensic reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTerms like \u003cem\u003e“bias,” “training,”\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e“interpretation”\u003c/em\u003e indicate an awareness of human and organisational factors that mediate the practical application of DNA evidence—a theme particularly salient among forensic and academic respondents. The prominence of \u003cem\u003e“court,” “admissibility,”\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003e“chain”\u003c/em\u003e reinforces the close alignment between scientific processes and legal scrutiny, illustrating how procedural compliance remains a defining condition for evidentiary credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOverall, the word cloud visually confirms the interdisciplinary convergence identified in the thematic analysis: while legal professionals’ foreground normative safeguards, scientists and police participants emphasise technical precision and reliability, and students highlight ethical implications and educational needs. The frequency and relational density of these core terms demonstrate how DNA profiling operates as both a scientific technique and a socio-legal construct, embedded within overlapping vocabularies of law, science, and justice.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eTree Map of Thematic Coding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis figure displays a hierarchical Tree Map generated in NVivo 14, illustrating the relative coding density of the five major thematic categories across all interview transcripts. Each rectangle represents a parent code (theme), while its size corresponds to the proportion of references coded within that theme.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe largest segments—Legal \u0026amp; Governance and Emerging Technologies—indicate the most dominant areas of discussion, together accounting for more than half of all references. The medium-sized blocks (Outcomes and Psychological \u0026amp; Organisational) reveal moderate yet substantive engagement, reflecting participants’ emphasis on decision-making, bias, and the interpretative implications of DNA evidence. The smallest block—Accreditation \u0026amp; Standards—highlights comparatively limited attention, though its presence underscores persistent concern about laboratory validation and ISO compliance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis visualization complements the matrix and word cloud outputs by offering a holistic, spatial depiction of thematic prominence, demonstrating how professional discourse clusters around issues of governance, technology, and human judgment in the use of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCluster Analysis of Thematic Relationships\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis dendrogram illustrates the similarity relationships among the five major themes based on coding co-occurrence. \u003cem\u003eLegal \u0026amp; Governance\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eOutcomes\u003c/em\u003e cluster closely, indicating their conceptual interdependence in discussions of admissibility and investigative impact. A secondary cluster links \u003cem\u003ePsychological \u0026amp; Organisational\u003c/em\u003e factors with \u003cem\u003eAccreditation \u0026amp; Standards\u003c/em\u003e, reflecting the interconnected emphasis on human reliability and procedural quality in ensuring credible forensic outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe findings from this study underscore the multidimensional nature of DNA profiling as both a scientific practice and a socio-legal instrument. Across professional groups, participants articulated a shared recognition of DNA\u0026rsquo;s transformative evidentiary power, yet divergent interpretations of its ethical, procedural, and practical implications emerged. These variations reflect not only differing institutional mandates but also contrasting epistemic cultures within law, science, and policing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eIntegration of Legal and Scientific Dimensions\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dominance of the \u003cem\u003eLegal and Governance\u003c/em\u003e theme confirms that debates around DNA profiling remain grounded in procedural justice and privacy safeguards. This echoes the jurisprudential trends in cases such as \u003cem\u003eS and Marper v. United Kingdom (2008)\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eMaryland v. King (2013)\u003c/em\u003e, which foreground the tension between individual rights and state interests in genetic surveillance. Participants\u0026rsquo; concerns about the lack of uniform legislation and weak data protection frameworks mirror existing literature (e.g., Williams \u0026amp; Johnson, 2008), which critiques the global patchwork of DNA governance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimultaneously, the prominence of \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e indicates growing awareness of how innovation\u0026mdash;such as rapid DNA, phenotyping, and probabilistic genotyping\u0026mdash;continues to outpace legal adaptation. Professionals highlighted the urgent need for statutory reform, transparent validation protocols, and greater interoperability standards to prevent ethical breaches and evidentiary inconsistency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePsychological and Organisational Influences\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThemes related to \u003cem\u003ePsychological and Organisational\u003c/em\u003e factors extend the discussion beyond technical or procedural domains to the human dimension of forensic decision-making. Consistent with (Dror \u0026amp; Hampikian, 2011), participants identified confirmation bias, overreliance on DNA, and inadequate cognitive training as recurring challenges. Police and forensic respondents noted that investigative pressures often encourage premature closure based on DNA results, potentially sidelining contextual reasoning. Such tendencies underscore the necessity of bias-mitigation mechanisms, including sequential unmasking and decision audits, as part of institutional forensic policy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEvidentiary Outcomes and Public Confidence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eOutcomes\u003c/em\u003e theme reinforces the notion that DNA evidence profoundly influences investigative trajectories and judicial decision-making. However, several participants cautioned that its probative value is sometimes overstated in both courtrooms and public discourse\u0026mdash;the so-called \u0026ldquo;CSI effect.\u0026rdquo; This aligns with (Martire, 2013), who demonstrated persistent misunderstanding of probabilistic reasoning among legal actors. The study\u0026rsquo;s findings suggest that effective communication between scientists and courts remains a critical determinant of justice outcomes, demanding training in statistical literacy for all stakeholders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAccreditation, Standards, and Quality Assurance\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough least referenced, the \u003cem\u003eAccreditation \u0026amp; Standards\u003c/em\u003e theme holds structural significance. Forensic practitioners emphasised the uneven implementation of ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation across laboratories and the need for uniform quality benchmarks. This echoes the recommendations of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2009), which called for systemic oversight to ensure scientific reliability in forensic practice. The clustering of this theme with \u003cem\u003ePsychological \u0026amp; Organisational\u003c/em\u003e codes in the dendrogram suggests a conceptual linkage between procedural quality and human reliability\u0026mdash;highlighting that even robust scientific systems are only as dependable as the people and institutions that uphold them.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInterdisciplinary Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTaken together, the results reaffirm that DNA profiling\u0026rsquo;s legitimacy depends on the integration of three governance pillars: legal oversight, scientific validation, and psychological awareness. Fragmentation across these domains\u0026rsquo; risks undermining evidentiary reliability and public trust. The study thus contributes to bridging the persistent disciplinary divide by demonstrating that effective forensic governance must be simultaneously rights-based, scientifically grounded, and cognitively informed.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis research provides an integrative understanding of DNA profiling as a nexus of legal, scientific, and psychological practice within the criminal justice system (Zareef et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Through qualitative thematic analysis, it reveals that while professionals across sectors recognise the transformative utility of DNA evidence, their perceptions are shaped by differing institutional priorities and epistemological frameworks. Legal actors emphasise procedural justice and human rights safeguards; forensic scientists focus on laboratory integrity and methodological transparency; investigators highlight operational efficiency; and academics foreground ethical and conceptual considerations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe overarching insight is that DNA profiling cannot be understood solely through the lens of science or law\u0026mdash;it must be viewed as a socio-technical system requiring interdisciplinary regulation and reflexive professional culture. Policy implications include the need for harmonised legislative frameworks governing data use and retention, mandatory accreditation and quality audits for forensic laboratories, and structured training programs addressing cognitive bias, probabilistic reasoning, and ethical decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy situating DNA profiling within an integrated governance model, the study advances the argument that justice is not only a matter of scientific accuracy or legal compliance, but of sustained collaboration between disciplines. In aligning legal safeguards with scientific precision and psychological awareness, criminal justice systems can better balance innovation with accountability, ensuring that the power of DNA evidence serves both truth and fairness.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eABHAY KUMAR PANDEY CONCEPTUALIZATION, METHODLOGY, WRITING - ORIGINAL DRAFTDR. SHASHIKANT TRIPATHIINVESTIGATION, SUPERVISION, VALIDATIONDR. MANISH MISHRADATA CURATION, FORMAL ANALYSIS, PROJECT ADMINISTRATION MR. SHIVAM GUPTAPREPARED FIGURES AND TABLES DR. SMRITI ROY AND DR. RAHUL TIWARI WRITING- REVIEW \u0026amp; EDITING, DATA COLLECTION\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbrahamyan Empson, L., Baumann, P. S., S\u0026ouml;derstr\u0026ouml;m, O., Codeluppi, Z., S\u0026ouml;derstr\u0026ouml;m, D., \u0026amp; Conus, P. O. (2020). Urbanicity: The need for new avenues to explore the link between urban living and psychosis. \u003cem\u003eEarly Intervention in Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(4), 398\u0026ndash;409. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12861\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAi, X., Smith, M. C., \u0026amp; Feltus, F. A. (2023). Generative adversarial networks applied to gene expression analysis: An interdisciplinary perspective. \u003cem\u003eComputational and Systems Oncology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cso2.1050\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eB. Balanay Jr, S., \u0026amp; Teresa M. Fajardo, M. (2025). Analysis and Design of a Multidirectional Scientific Inquiry Model (MSIM) Based on Existing Inquiry-Based Tasks (IBT). \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Educational Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 156\u0026ndash;162. https://doi.org/10.12691/EDUCATION-13-4-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBauer, B. U., Knittler, M. R., Andrack, J., Berens, C., Campe, A., Christiansen, B., Fasemore, A. M., Fischer, S. F., Ganter, M., K\u0026ouml;rner, S., Makert, G. R., Matthiesen, S., Mertens-Scholz, K., Rinkel, S., Runge, M., Schulze-Luehrmann, J., Ulbert, S., Winter, F., Frangoulidis, D., \u0026amp; L\u0026uuml;hrmann, A. (2023). Interdisciplinary studies on Coxiella burnetii: From molecular to cellular, to host, to one health research. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Medical Microbiology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e313\u003c/em\u003e(6). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2023.151590\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBechky, B. A. (2020). Evaluative Spillovers from Technological Change: The Effects of \u0026ldquo;DNA Envy\u0026rdquo; on Occupational Practices in Forensic Science. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Science Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(3), 606\u0026ndash;643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839219855329\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBivins, R. (2023). Pilot Programs and Postcolonial Pivots: Pioneering DNA Fingerprinting on Britain\u0026rsquo;s Borders. \u003cem\u003eComparative Studies in Society and History\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e65\u003c/em\u003e(2), 346\u0026ndash;371. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0010417522000494\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBraun, V., \u0026amp; Clarke, V. (2021). One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? \u003cem\u003eQualitative Research in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(3), 328\u0026ndash;352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020.1769238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarmo Rodrigues Brand\u0026atilde;o, E. C., \u0026amp; Fortunato Ferreira, V. (2024). THE USE OF THE DNA TESTING FOR CRIMINAL IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES IN CRIMES AGAINST SEXUAL DIGNITY[A UTILIZA\u0026Ccedil;\u0026Atilde;O DO EXAME DE DNA PARA FINS DE IDENTIFICA\u0026Ccedil;\u0026Atilde;O CRIMINAL NOS CRIMES CONTRA A DIGNIDADE SEXUAL620]. \u003cem\u003eRevista Eletronica de Direito Processual\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e25\u003c/em\u003e(3), 273\u0026ndash;304. https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2024.86605\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChernego, D. I., Vasilyeva, M. J., \u0026amp; Muhamedrahimov, R. J. (2023a). The Impact of Early Institutionalization Experience on Child Development: Biological Indicators, Physiological Mechanisms, Behavioral Characteristics; Влияние раннего опыта институционализации на развитие ребенка: биологические показатели, физиологические механизмы, поведенческие характеристики. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 9\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChernego, D. I., Vasilyeva, M. J., \u0026amp; Muhamedrahimov, R. J. (2023b). The Impact of Early Institutionalization Experience on Child Development: Biological Indicators, Physiological Mechanisms, Behavioral Characteristics; Влияние раннего опыта институционализации на развитие ребенка: биологические показатели, физиологические механизмы, поведенческие характеристики. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 9\u0026ndash;27. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChopin, J., \u0026amp; Beauregard, \u0026Eacute;. M. (2021a). \u003cem\u003eThe contribution of psychological science in police responses of sexual assaults\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 243\u0026ndash;264). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816544-7.00012-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChopin, J., \u0026amp; Beauregard, \u0026Eacute;. M. (2021b). \u003cem\u003eThe contribution of psychological science in police responses of sexual assaults\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 243\u0026ndash;264). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816544-7.00012-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEriksen, N., Zaimi, E., Bushati, A., Shpati, K., Myzyri, K., \u0026amp; Hysa, E. (2023a). The Importance of DNA Profiling from Teeth for Forensic Purposes \u0026ndash; A Case Report. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of International Conference on Research in Education and Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2469\u0026ndash;2480.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEriksen, N., Zaimi, E., Bushati, A., Shpati, K., Myzyri, K., \u0026amp; Hysa, E. (2023b). The Importance of DNA Profiling from Teeth for Forensic Purposes \u0026ndash; A Case Report. \u003cem\u003eProceedings of International Conference on Research in Education and Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2469\u0026ndash;2480.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFerrero, A. M., \u0026amp; Scotti, V. (2022). Forensic DNA Profiling. In \u003cem\u003eResearch for Development\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14619-0_10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreilich, C. D., Markon, K. E., Mann, F. D., Cole, S. W., \u0026amp; Krueger, R. F. (2024a). Associations Between Loneliness, Epigenetic Aging, and Multimorbidity Through Older Adulthood. \u003cem\u003eJournals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(12). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreilich, C. D., Markon, K. E., Mann, F. D., Cole, S. W., \u0026amp; Krueger, R. F. (2024b). Associations Between Loneliness, Epigenetic Aging, and Multimorbidity Through Older Adulthood. \u003cem\u003eJournals of Gerontology - Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(12). https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae169\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Campayo, J. J., Puebla-Guedea, M., Labarga, A., Urd\u0026aacute;noz-Casado, A., Roldan, M., Pulido, L., Mart\u0026iacute;nez de Morentin, X. M., Perdones-Montero, \u0026Aacute;., Montero-Mar\u0026iacute;n, J., \u0026amp; Mendioroz, M. T. (2018a). Epigenetic Response to Mindfulness in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes Involves Genes Linked to Common Human Diseases. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1146\u0026ndash;1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0851-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGarc\u0026iacute;a-Campayo, J. J., Puebla-Guedea, M., Labarga, A., Urd\u0026aacute;noz-Casado, A., Roldan, M., Pulido, L., Mart\u0026iacute;nez de Morentin, X. M., Perdones-Montero, \u0026Aacute;., Montero-Mar\u0026iacute;n, J., \u0026amp; Mendioroz, M. T. (2018b). Epigenetic Response to Mindfulness in Peripheral Blood Leukocytes Involves Genes Linked to Common Human Diseases. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1146\u0026ndash;1159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0851-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong, B., Li, D., Łabaj, P. P., Pan, B., Novoradovskaya, N., Thierry-Mieg, D., Thierry-Mieg, J., Chen, G., Bergstrom Lucas, A., LoCoco, J. S., Richmond, T. A., Tseng, E., Kusko, R. L., Happe, S., Mercer, T. R., Pab\u0026oacute;n-Pe\u0026ntilde;a, C. R., Salmans, M. L., Tilgner, H. U., Xiao, W., \u0026hellip; Xu, J. (2024a). Targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq of Reference Samples with Short-read and Long-read Sequencing. \u003cem\u003eScientific Data\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03741-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGong, B., Li, D., Łabaj, P. P., Pan, B., Novoradovskaya, N., Thierry-Mieg, D., Thierry-Mieg, J., Chen, G., Bergstrom Lucas, A., LoCoco, J. S., Richmond, T. A., Tseng, E., Kusko, R. L., Happe, S., Mercer, T. R., Pab\u0026oacute;n-Pe\u0026ntilde;a, C. R., Salmans, M. L., Tilgner, H. U., Xiao, W., \u0026hellip; Xu, J. (2024b). Targeted DNA-seq and RNA-seq of Reference Samples with Short-read and Long-read Sequencing. \u003cem\u003eScientific Data\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03741-y\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHartshorne, D., Roeder, A. D., Elsmore, P., McDonald, A., \u0026amp; Greenham, J. (2024). \u003cem\u003eThe Challenges of Introducing Massively Parallel Sequencing into the UK Forensic Market\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 219\u0026ndash;237). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-56556-4_10\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJia, Y., Nithianandam, P., Liu, T., \u0026amp; Li, J. (2023). Development of Wearable Chemical Sensors: An Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Laboratory Experiment Facilitating Knowledge and Expertise Integration. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Chemical Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e100\u003c/em\u003e(9), 3595\u0026ndash;3603. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00379\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKaur, S., Kujur, M., Rawat, B., Upadhyaya, M., \u0026amp; Varshney, K. C. (2022). Journey of unidentified bodies towards DNA identification: A social, medico-legal and forensic perspective from New Delhi in India. \u003cem\u003eForensic Science International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e341\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111470\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKotze, M. J., Grant, K. A., van der Merwe, N. C., Barsdorf, N. W., \u0026amp; Kruger, M. (2024). Navigating ethical challenges of integrating genomic medicine into clinical practice: Maximising beneficence in precision oncology. \u003cem\u003eSouth African Journal of Bioethics and Law\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1). https://doi.org/10.7196/sajbl.2024.v17i1.2071\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLopez Toribio, R. M., Castaneda Eugenio, N. E., \u0026amp; Manrique de Lara Suare, D. A. (2024). Association between forensic DNA and odontology in human identification during mass disaster: a systematic review. \u003cem\u003eRussian Journal of Forensic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3), 372\u0026ndash;397. https://doi.org/10.17816/fm16148\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMal\u0026rsquo;chenkova, A. A., \u0026amp; Kosobokova, E. N. (2024). Artifacts of analysis in cell line identification by short tandem repeat profiling; Артефакты анализа при идентификации клеточных линий методом профилирования на основе коротких тандемных повторов. \u003cem\u003eCardiovascular Therapy and Prevention (Russian Federation)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(11), 80\u0026ndash;91. https://doi.org/10.15829/1728-8800-2024-4121\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMedina-Paz, F., Castagnola, M. J., Yukhno, V., Ulloa, D., Stadler, C., Roca, G., \u0026amp; C. Zapico, S. (2025). The washing away of evidence: The effect of different washing treatments on body fluid identification and DNA profiling from stained clothing fabrics. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Forensic and Legal Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2025.102893\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontelius, K., Stenersen, M., \u0026amp; Sajantila, A. (2024a). \u003cem\u003eDisaster Victim Management: DNA Identification\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, pp. V2-266). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00134-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMontelius, K., Stenersen, M., \u0026amp; Sajantila, A. (2024b). \u003cem\u003eDisaster Victim Management: DNA Identification\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 2, pp. V2-266). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00134-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrainsack, B., \u0026amp; Samuel, G. N. (2022). \u003cem\u003eTHE STAKES OF FORENSIC PHENOTYPIC PROFILING: Can solidarity help?\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 201\u0026ndash;216). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429322358-16\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePullen-Blasnik, H., Eyal, G., \u0026amp; Weissenbach, A. (2024a). \u0026lsquo;Is your accuser me, or is it the software?\u0026rsquo; Ambiguity and contested expertise in probabilistic DNA profiling. \u003cem\u003eSocial Studies of Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231186646\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePullen-Blasnik, H., Eyal, G., \u0026amp; Weissenbach, A. (2024b). \u0026lsquo;Is your accuser me, or is it the software?\u0026rsquo; Ambiguity and contested expertise in probabilistic DNA profiling. \u003cem\u003eSocial Studies of Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e54\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127231186646\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSatoh, T., Kutsuwada, Y., Inokuchi, S., Ishida, T., Ikeda, T., Hirota, R., Kuroda, A., Matsumura, K., \u0026amp; Iwase, S. (2024). Application of bioluminescence assay to assess PCR carryover contamination in forensic DNA laboratories. \u003cem\u003eForensic Chemistry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e38\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forc.2024.100566\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSessa, F., Chisari, M., Esposito, M., Karaboue, M. A. A., Salerno, M., \u0026amp; Cocimano, G. (2025). Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) Regarding Forensic Genetic Investigations (FGIs). \u003cem\u003eJournal of Academic Ethics\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09582-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw, I. C., \u0026amp; Sandiford, A. (2024a). \u003cem\u003eForensic science: The science behind the truth\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;348). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837670406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShaw, I. C., \u0026amp; Sandiford, A. (2024b). \u003cem\u003eForensic science: The science behind the truth\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;348). https://doi.org/10.1039/9781837670406\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShort, S. (2024). \u003cem\u003eSerology: Blood Identification\u003c/em\u003e (Vol. 4, pp. V4-238). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-443-21441-7.00227-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpicer, J. (2023). \u003cem\u003eFORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY IN DEATH INVESTIGATIONS\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 132\u0026ndash;149). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195283-13\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerry, M. B. E., \u0026amp; Colditz, G. A. (2023). Epidemiology and Risk Factors for Breast Cancer: 21st Century Advances, Gaps to Address through Interdisciplinary Science. \u003cem\u003eCold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(9). https://doi.org/10.1101/cshperspect.a041317\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan Oorschot, I., \u0026amp; M\u0026rsquo;charek, A. (2021). Keeping race at bay: familial DNA research, the \u0026lsquo;Turkish Community,\u0026rsquo; and the pragmatics of multiple collectives in investigative practice. \u003cem\u003eBioSocieties\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 553\u0026ndash;573. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-021-00246-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWard, J., Watherston, J., Kahline, I. L., McMahon, T. P., \u0026amp; Edson, S. M. (2022). \u003cem\u003eGenotyping and sequencing of DNA recovered from human skeletal remains using capillary electrophoresis (CE)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 285\u0026ndash;323). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815766-4.00014-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZareef, I., Rathore, A. W., Zaheen, U., Riaz, A., Rakha, A., \u0026amp; Munawar, A. (2025). A model research study on persistence, recovery and analysis of trace DNA under fingernails of drowned bodies. \u003cem\u003eForensic Science International\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e377\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2025.112649\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZerbe, S. (2023). \u003cem\u003eRestoration of Ecosystems - Bridging Nature and Humans: A Transdisciplinary Approach\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 1\u0026ndash;723). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65658-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeye, M. M. J., Ouedraogo, S. Y., Millogo, M., Djigma, F. W., Zoure, A. A., Zeba, M., Palenfo, R., Dakio, N., Zaongo, S. D., Wu, X., \u0026amp; Simpore, J. (2024). Forensic DNA database and criminal investigation in the Sahel region: a need to update the national security policy? \u003cem\u003eForensic Sciences Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad056\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZeye, M. M. J., Ou\u0026eacute;draogo, S. Y., Millogo, M., Djigma, F. W., Zour\u0026eacute;, A. A., Zeba, M. T. A., Palenfo, R., Dakio, N., Zaongo, S. D., Wu, L., \u0026amp; Simpore, J. (2024). Forensic DNA database and criminal investigation in the Sahel region: a need to update the national security policy? \u003cem\u003eForensic Sciences Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/fsr/owad056\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"DNA Profiling, Forensic Science, Legal Governance, Cognitive Bias, Criminal Justice System","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigates how legal, scientific, and psychological dimensions intersect in shaping the interpretation and operationalisation of DNA profiling within the criminal justice system. Adopting an interpretivist qualitative design grounded in Creswell\u0026rsquo;s methodological framework, data were gathered through seventeen semi-structured focus group interviews comprising judges, lawyers, forensic scientists, police officers, private investigators, and academic researchers. Using NVivo 14, thematic analysis identified five overarching domains\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies, Legal and Governance, Outcomes, Psychological and Organisational Factors\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eAccreditation and Standards.\u003c/em\u003e The analysis revealed that \u003cem\u003eLegal and Governance\u003c/em\u003e issues dominated professional discourse, reflecting persistent concern about admissibility, privacy, and cross-border data sharing. \u003cem\u003eEmerging Technologies\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eOutcomes\u003c/em\u003e highlighted both the transformative potential and the evidentiary challenges posed by rapid advances in forensic genetics. Psychological and organisational influences\u0026mdash;particularly cognitive bias and inadequate training\u0026mdash;emerged as critical, yet under-addressed, dimensions affecting decision-making reliability. Word cloud, tree map, and cluster analyses demonstrated conceptual interdependence between legal oversight, scientific validation, and human cognition. Collectively, the findings emphasise that DNA profiling functions not merely as a technical instrument but as a socio-legal construct requiring integrated governance, interdisciplinary training, and ethical stewardship. The study concludes that strengthening forensic policy, standardisation, and cognitive awareness across professional domains is essential to ensuring both the evidentiary credibility and moral legitimacy of DNA profiling in contemporary justice systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"DNA Profiling and Investigative Decision-Making: Legal, Scientific and Psychological Perspectives in the Criminal Justice System","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-07 12:19:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7938565/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"c3e9f470-8496-4851-a91c-81b164bab660","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 7th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-04T11:08:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-07 12:19:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7938565","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7938565","identity":"rs-7938565","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}