DNA Identification in Mass Fatality Incidents
Chapter 3: Before the Incident
Decisions made by the laboratory director during first 48 hours following a mass fatality incident are crucial to the efficiency and overall success of the DNA identification effort. Asking—and answering—the questions posed in this chapter will guide a laboratory director in preparing a response plan.
Benoît Leclair
Nothing in the history of mass fatality events prepared the forensic community for the complexity of the World Trade Center identification effort. The number of victims, the extent of remains fragmentation and deterioration, and the challenge of matching victims to relatives—the demands were tremendous. These circumstances drove forward forensic technological development that was aimed at extracting maximal genotypic information from highly compromised samples and matching the extracted data to genotypes derived from references. Without this concerted effort, the number of identified victims would have been much lower.
The hours and days immediately following a mass fatality incident are inevitably chaotic. The laboratory director must simultaneously address a number of issues, including responding to the diverse requests from elected officials, government agencies, the media, the victims’ families, and the laboratory staff. Despite these competing pressures, the laboratory director must recognize that the decisions made during the first 48 hours will largely determine the efficiency and efficacy of the DNA identification effort.
This point cannot be overemphasized. In fact, some hasty or reactive decisions made during the initial hours after the 9/11 attacks caused management obstacles that spanned the life of the project. The best strategy for avoiding reactive management decisions is to prepare a DNA identification response plan before an incident occurs, and the best mass fatality response plans—which anticipate a potential forensic DNA identification effort—consider the humanitarian, scientific, information technology, and political factors, as well as staffing and resource requirements that will be necessary to mount a response. The laboratory’s mass fatality response plan should dovetail with the plans of other agencies and departments, especially the ME’s office.
Several useful processes and procedures may already exist in a forensic laboratory. For example, process mapping can be useful in improving and expanding a laboratory’s capabilities, and this management tool would also benefit the implementation of a mass fatality response plan.
The following questions should be considered when formulating a mass fatality response plan for a forensic laboratory:
- Are there sufficient people, resources, equipment, and funding to support the effort?
- How will the DNA identification effort be funded?
- What agencies/departments will interact with the laboratory? Who are the points of contact?
- Which agencies/departments will be in charge of specific activities—for example, collecting reference samples, collecting disaster samples, administration of funding?
- What activities will the laboratory director be responsible for, and what activities can other agencies or departments assume responsibility for?
- How and when will the laboratory director assess the degree to which samples are compromised (e.g., fragmentation, commingling, degradation)? What metrics will be used to make the assessment?
- How, when, and by whom will reference samples be collected?
- How will additional equipment and supplies be made available in a timely manner?
- How will staff and resources be reorganized to handle the ongoing casework and the increased casework due to the mass fatality incident?
- Who will be the point of contact with the media?
- Will the laboratory outsource DNA testing? Which testing? To whom?
- What metrics will be used to describe progress in the DNA identification effort to family members, elected officials, and the media?
- What are the information technology (“informatics”) needs for hardware, software, and technical support? How will those needs be met?
Robert Shaler
One of the early decisions in the World Trade Center identification effort was to try to identify every sample. Because of the extensive fragmentation of the remains, this gave us the best chance of identifying as many missing as possible.
In addition to having a mass fatality response plan, laboratories can mitigate the impact of increased demands on capacity and, often, capabilities by creating tools in advance. Appendixes B through G are samples of such tools—sample collection forms, sample biological collection kit specifications, issues to consider when outsourcing to another laboratory, and a DNA information brochure for the families of victims—that may be helpful to laboratory directors. These resources are discussed in detail in other chapters of the report.
Laboratory directors who are responding to a mass fatality incident may need to consider using human resources from other agencies. The Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams (DMORT), and Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are three Federal agencies that often assist Federal, State, and local jurisdictions in the initial phases of a mass fatality incident response. Exhibit 2 describes these agencies and their roles. It is important that the laboratory maintain an updated chain of command and contact information for these Federal resources.
