I'm on that DNA database. I don't have a problem with everybody being on it, but I with the legality of obtaining it, its validity & sampling technique. As a biochemist I know a sample is only good if it is properly & accurately obtained, & not contaminated.

In my case, I was not advised prior to accepting a caution at Brighton police station that that meant automatic sampling which I could not refuse. In the sampling room there was a large intimidating notice on the wall to say that a forceable DNA sample should not be obtained via pubic hair!

A Group 4 custody person did the sampling. I don't know if he was trained or is legal. At the table where they took the mouth swab, was a 1m x 0.5m exhaust air fan blowing air down on to the sample, which he waved around before bagging!

The electronic fingerprint machine had an error message saying not to use the data if a light was lit. After 3 tries with it lit, the guy said don't worry, it does that all the time. End of scan. Valid data?

Tony Spencer, St Rémy de Provence, France

Science is not the problem but the quality of the people who would use and abuse it. The key difference between political philosophies is that the left think government is good for you so more is better and the right think it might not be but want to be touchy - feely on the subject, so as to match the national mood. Yobs, criminals and terrorists reinforce this conviction of the left so that there is very little that New Labour will not seek to control. Scientists have peer group review and other scientists who ruthlessly check "breakthroughs" to see if they can replicate the results. The check on the pond-life who rule us is the ballot box but since a large minority take no part in this process we certainly get the politicians we deserve.

Graham McKean, Sevenoaks, Kent

As someone who works in this field I have strong personal views about genetic information and who should or should not have access to it.

However I am a Forensic Scientist and as such my personal opinion is not relevant. What is relevant here is the role played by newspapers and television programmes. The general public rely far too heavily on the media to inform their opinion and are quite happy to be spoon fed a diet of half truths and speculation. We should all wake up and educate ourselves. Ask questions, canvas our MP's and instead of just reading the headlines, take the time to digest some of the vast amount of peer reviewed literature that is available on these subjects.

Karen Greenwood, Carlisle, UK

When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.

I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.

We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA dataase? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.

Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK

Thank you for highlighting Justice Sedley as a communist. Other former communist party members include Jack Straw and "Dr" John Reid. David Miliband is the son of and eminent Marxist, if eminence is possible in this field.

These are hard men who seek to restrict individual freedoms and enslave the population to an authoritarian socialist state. For example- ID cards, road pricing / tracking , DNA database, curtailment of jury trials, suspension of habaeus corpus, restrictions on freedom of speech and our right to protest....etc etc.

If the increasingly politicised police have everyone's DNA they could easily silence dissidents and political opposition by quiet threats of a DNA fit-up. Who will risk speaking out against the govt knowing that Labour's police state has total information on them?

David Davis has spoken passionately in favour of our ancient freedoms. It is time the Tories started shouting more loudly in defence of liberty and democracy.

D Rochester, Liverpool, UK

Tolkien had this worked out. Saruman crosses humans with orcs to make a race of warriors, the Uruk-Hai. The good characters shake their heads and say "that was an evil deed".

There is no scientific interest in creating human-animal hybrids. The motive comes from those interested in practical applications, not the pursuit of knowledge.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.

I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.

We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA database? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.

Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK

There is no conflict between 'Science@ and freedom, the conflict arises at the point of application of science, usually after corruption by politicians to meet the immediate, reflexive, emotive argument they are faced with. The long term research and, if possible in the culture of short term political life, a long term view of how such research is to be ethically applied may yield more than any fiscal policy of a former Chancellor.

John Langtry, Belfast,

Sedley's suggestion represents the views of many in Britain, I reckon. Most people don't think nowadays, they emote. Whether it's Princess Di or a poor little chap's murder or the death of a well-fed opera singer, it's all grist to Britain's public emotion mill. We lurve it! Cameramen routinely focus their lens on people's eyes in docudramas so that the first signs of weeping may be observed. It's the new money shot that appeases advertisers. Life's one big drama. Britain is developing into a nuthouse with few sane people left, as most of these have left to live more sensible lives abroad. (I'm still saving up for my low-cost flight to freedom.) DNA is trivial in comparison with all the rest of Britain's teeming woes. It would be just one more SNAFU to add to Britain's sorry record. Of course, there would be countless wrong convictions, but those receiving compensation later would still be expected to pay for their board and lodging. Britain is a lost cause now. Get over it!

Mike Mitchell, Spalding, England

Excellent article. Not only is the DNA database a bad idea, it is symptom of a terrible bureaucratic disease. Interesting about the the children's database and celebrities: what about the rest of us?

John, London, UK

The problem is Minette that too nany people watch CSI and think DNA is the be and end all. If we did get everyone on the DNA database(which I think would potentially give us a terrifying future where we are perhaps given a job based on our genetic predisposition to something, especially with Labour's desire for function creep) in order to catch criminals then it doesn't take a genius to work out that if the police are becoming more and more reliant on DNA then the best thing to do is to plant other people's DNA.

Steph, Brighton,

If your DNA is put on the criminal database, it is absolutely useless for solving crimes unless you commit a crime in which you leave DNA at the scene. As the vast majority of us will never commit such a crime, taking DNA samples from everyone would be largely a waste of time. Everyone who advocates such a move needs to be absolutely clear about this. If all our DNA is put on the database, the State is effectively saying that we are all potential criminals, which most of us will never be; it is thus a breach of our basic right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty. And as it's obvious that most people's DNA will never be of use in crime detection, what's the real reason for wanting it?

Rob Jones, Loughborough, U.K.

I suspect Lord Justice Sedley may have intended to provoke a reaction. All this technology does is increasingly concentrate power in a small number of hands and/or out of public view. This is the problem. Increasing secrecy, increasing polarisation or centralisation of power, and George Orwell is looking a decidedly unimaginative naif. These things have a tendency to be difficult to reverse and their beneficial effects are altogether questionable. As you observe, since DNA has been available for identification, the performance of the police hasn t changed - quantitatively, at least. Furthermore, technology that could have been introduced to inhibit crime, particularly in the matter of car thefts, has been slow to appear. The police obviously don t want to do themselves out of a job but they like strolling around with machine guns. We definitely need to resist anything that enables authority to run things to their own advantage without any necessary regard to the general interest.

Henry Percy, London, UK

When the details about everyone in the 'higher' reaches of society - politicians,quango members, members of the Lords, high-earning captains of industry yaddayada ... then it might be considered safe enough for the details of us,the little people.Otherwise,they should respect our individual privacy and rights as solid,uncriminal citizens of a democracy.Perhaps our big mistake was in upping the salaries of all these MPs and giving them too many ideas about how entitled they are too more privileges than the rest of us!

kay, leeds,

I have also been the victim of delibrate targetting by the police to gain DNA and fingerprints on to the Police National Computer. When I wrote to Hazel Blairs through my MP she said it was necessary BUT when asked if she had hers and that of her children/grad chidren there was silence, so did the MP for Bradford West MArsha Singh. I would much rather prefer a compulsary DNA for all that the current back-handed way we now have. Lets hope the case that has gone to the European Court is successfuland the Media give it teh attention it deserves!!!

nandi logan, Croydon, uk

Stalinist tendencies are particularly distasteful when they come from the judiciary.

Simon Marshland, Bath, UK

This proposition may or may not provide a panacea against crime, but sooner or later those in favour of it will have to come to terms with the realities of implementing it.

It’s clearly controversial, and for every person who skips merrily down to the State Processing Centre chanting ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ there will be another who will not want to provide their DNA unless they are compelled to do so. And ultimately who will have to do the compelling? The police of course.

If I were asked to come up with a more efficient way to destroy confidence and trust between the general law-abiding public and the police than this, I’m buggered if I could think of one.

G Taylor, Devon, UK

42% of people polled in the Daily Mail were in favour of EVERYBODY being registered on the DNA database, that speaks volumes about the Sheep like British and their blind obedience to authority.Nearly HALF the population see nothing sinister or wrong in giving their most intimate bodily evidence to the state.
It's enough to make you weep.

edwina rigby, blackburn, england

You are right: it is the abuse of Science that is the central problem, but even Science is not without ideological camps or egotistical individuals. (e.g. Sir Roy Meadows). We should not trust Scientists either.

Shaun Okane, London, London