To add to this confusion, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) in their interim policy calls it “Forensic Genetic Genealogical DNA Analysis and Searching (FGGS)”.[8] The DOJ policy uses the term “forensic genealogy” to refer to the use of DNA analysis with traditional genealogy research, either with STRs or SNPs, and FGG to refer to the use of SNPs specifically, in addition to the type of databases used. Maryland, the first state to regulate the use of FGGS, also uses this term in its legislation, similarly defining it by its use of SNPs and particular databases.[9] The relevance of the term “forensic” is consistent in both the policy and the legislation. Regardless, the expectations for use of genealogical evidence in the judicial process remains unclear. Will practitioners be required to act as expert witnesses? In 2019, defense lawyers made a motion for discovery in the People of the State of California vs. Roy Charles Waller. The defense argued for their right to know the “familial searches of the private genetic genealogy databases as well as the genetic genealogy company or companies that have been involved and all the reports and communications with them.”[10] Ultimately, the judge agreed with the idea that the genetic genealogy work is just an investigative lead, and like many tips that law enforcement receive that do not end up in a courtroom, is not relevant and therefore should not be made available to the defense, potentially establishing precedence.

Regardless of whether genealogical evidence is merely for investigative purposes and cannot be used as proof in court, situating the field under the umbrella of forensic science remains important. As Machado and Silva point out in their February 2022 article, quality assurance and standards in the field need to be addressed. Given that “STRs used in traditional forensic DNA analysis are generated by accredited forensic laboratories that must comply with a host of quality assurance standards and requirements,”[11] shouldn’t the work done by forensic genetic genealogy service providers for FIGG also be required to follow these standards? John Butler’s 2023 review article offers many examples of guidelines and policy to draw upon.[12] The recent establishment of working groups to address this is promising in that regard.[13]

Further, while the proponents of IGG are working on a board for accreditation of investigative genetic genealogists, their proposal highlights another reason as to why they do not wish to be under the forensic umbrella. The board claims the work is not analogous to any existing fields, including forensic science, in support of movement towards self-regulation. Their argument is that although existing quality assurance standards can easily transfer from accredited labs that do STR testing to labs that do SNP testing, given that the work that genetic genealogists do is very different from the work done in labs, the same standards do not hold.[14] However, many standards and guidelines currently exist that would be compatible with genetic genealogy, including data security, privacy, training, and codes of ethical conduct.[15] Policies that emphasize transparency are also important, given that it is a vital aspect of promoting public trust. Drawing from currently available guidelines, policy and best practices developed from well-established organizations and working groups not only avoids recreating the wheel, it demonstrates FIGG practitioner commitment to high standards of proficiency and quality control, and increases confidence in the reliability of work products.

The name of this field isn’t just relevant to English. As Scudder et al. point out in their 2019 article, “the technique has an international and cross-border element.”[16] When matches in the databases can come from around the world, it is necessary to develop a vocabulary to talk about this field in all languages. Tillmar et al. published a case study of a 16 year old double murder that was solved in Sweden.[17] An article referencing this, published by the Swedish Chemical Society, refers to the technique as “rättsgenetiska släktforskningsmetoder”[18] which translates to forensic genetic genealogy methods. A Spanish article refers to it as “genealogía forense” (forensic genealogy) or “genealogía genética investigativa” (investigative genetic genealogy).[19] As jurisdictions around the world begin to regulate this technique, following the regulations in cross-jurisdictional cases requires knowing that they are referring to the same methods. Scudder pointed out in his presentation at ISHI 33 that the language issue remains relevant even if the regulations are written in English. For example, the Gedmatch PRO terms of service give an example of a violent crime that is eligible for upload to their database as “aggravated rape.” This may not be a term used by various jurisdictions and it may be necessary to clarify this to be consistent with the terms of service.[20]

In the end, the name debate may not matter. What the field will be called as defined in legal and regulatory contexts will certainly influence the name. More likely, what the media calls it will enter public consciousness, and the shorter “forensic genealogy” may win out, making the rationales for the various terms moot. However, regardless of whether FIGG practitioners will be able to testify in court or will be regulated like the forensic sciences, continuous development and rigorous commitment to standards and best practices is necessary.