With great investigative power, genetic genealogists have a great responsibility to conduct themselves ethically to preserve a system that is entirely reliant on public participation to solve violent crimes, according to CeCe Moore, a pioneer of the industry and the chief genetic genealogist at Parabon NanoLabs.

The use of investigative genetic genealogy (IGG) to solve violent crimes has overwhelming public support, she said, but privacy concerns are still an issue in cases like University of Idaho student murders suspect Bryan Kohberger’s, where the FBI accessed two databases that purport to exclude law enforcement from their services. As a result, unwitting users could be submitting clues that lead detectives to their own relatives without knowing it.

Transcripts unsealed of a closed-door hearing on the defense’s attempt to have DNA evidence thrown out of court revealed that the FBI violated a Department of Justice interim policy and the terms of service of the two private databases agents turned to after the smaller ones, FamilyTreeDNA and GEDmatch PRO, didn’t pan out.

The concern among critics, however, is that law enforcement could risk dissuading members of the public from participating in genetic genealogy testing over concerns that their data could be taken behind their backs, despite companies claiming it is protected. Many users want to trace their family trees, not necessarily help solve crimes.

The two largest databases, 23andMe and Ancestry DNA, don’t face this issue, because they don’t allow copied files of DNA samples to be uploaded. They require them to come directly from the source: a highly accurate sample from a cheek swab.

That kind of sample typically doesn’t exist in the early stages of a case where police turn to IGG, usually with something collected from a crime scene.

So far, the methods continue to show strong public support, Moore said.

“Most people out there want us to use this tool to stop violent criminals,” she told Fox News Digital. “I believe it was 91% of the people that we surveyed . . . [who] said that they want it used for this purpose, and I was surprised how many people even wanted it used for lesser crimes.”