DNA TESTING CAMPAIGN

[John_Hartley]

At post #11, I raise the issue of the likelihood of descendents wanting the state to pay for the their DNA testing so they can be matched against potential body discoveries. It is sufficient of a concern in my mind to make me question the process.

Since then, Jack and George raise the spectre of a public clamour for bodies to be "dug up" from cemeteries to be then DNA'd for possible future matching. Such a thought simply appals me, as it appals them, and should appal the common decency of anyone reading this thread.

My great uncle is known to be buried at Hannescamps and is commemorated by a special memorial there. Perhaps he is one of the of the 19 "Unknowns" buried there. Perhaps he is buried in the cemetery and is simply under the grass somewhere. Do I start to campaign for the 19 to be dug up so DNA can be taken and matched? The cemetery to be properly searched to find his remains? No, of course, I don't - I let Ben lie there with his mates. But others would surely want to for their own ancestors - and, then, whatever would have happened to "rest in peace".

[chrissparrow]

I strongly disagree George.

I would like to think that some of the names I 'look after' could have their bodies identified. Of course we should never start digging up graves, but when we find bodies they deserve our efforts to identify them. Just because direct relatives no longer exist does not mean we should show them any less respect, and trying to identify them is surely respectful? The loss of existing relatives does not deminish the efforts of the CWGC. Remeber 'In Perpetuity'.

Is anyone complaining about the cost of the Fromelles DNA testing? What fraction of the overall budget for the new cemetery is it?

Chris

[dfaulder]

I agree completely, David.

However, once you establish a well-publicised precedent of routinely preserving DNA material from new discoveries, there will (I think) be pressure for a wider scheme to address the already buried Missing. The CWGC was founded on the principle of equal treatment for all, regardless of military rank or civilian station. At the moment, it's beginning to look as if lads who have lain undiscovered for a hundred years are receiving greater consideration than those 'Known Unto God' who have been waiting patiently since 1919.

On balance I think we should probably not test for DNA unless every missing soldier has the chance to benefit. The Fromelles discovery is not that different from Gordon Dump. GD (and other similar cemeteries) is just a more organised version of the original Fromelles burial. It took a substantial campaign to track down the Fromelles families. Many of the GD families are already available. I keep in touch with most of the folk that I traced and the subject of DNA is never far from the conversation when we talk about a missing father, grandfather or uncle. Interestingly (and it may be an age thing) about half of those I've spoken to have told me that they disapprove of the disturbance of a grave - even if it means that their relative might be identified after nearly a century. Those who are committed enough to care are content to see the name at Thiepval, which is (after all) little more than a giant headstone. For the moment I think I agree with them.

I think Fromelles may have actually made things complicated because it involved substantial exhumation. Clearly a line has to be drawn - however fuzzy and wobbly.

My personal inclination is to say that deliberately digging up bodies just to enable identification crosses that line. The "let them lie" argument applies as does possible accusations of "desecration" - some may only apply the latter accusation to a formal "final burial", such as Gordon Dump, and that a "burial pit" is different. (For those not familiar with Gordon Dump - the "dump" refers to the logistics dump that used to be there, not a "dump of bodies" - see the plaque in the cemetery.).

"Equal treatment", does not mean the same treatment or the same end result. Those who have had "known unto God" graves, have had more "treatment" over the last 90+ year than those still out there. The Fromelles cohort have had more "treatment" than those buried under a named stone during or shortly after the war. Arithmetic cannot come into it - it' s the old "comparing apples and pears" argument. When immediately post-war a body was recovered, all feasible currently available methods were used to try and identify the casualty*; the same could be applied today. (*I am uncomfortably aware that some say they only checked dental records for officers, which sounds unequal - but possibly it was a pragmatic decision based on the likelihood of adequate dental records existing.)

I am intrigued that "about half" of those Jack have spoken to "disapprove of the disturbance of a grave - even if it means that their relative might be identified after nearly a century" - I would have expected a considerably higher proportion to disapprove. However, how would they respond to the identification of bodies outside cemeteries that get disturbed by wind, water, plough or construction digger? Certainly my father was haunted by the thought of the father he never knew lying "face down in Flander's mud" (he had MND and was worried about drowning in his own saliva as his father had probably drowned in mud - not that the former is a common way to die from MND when under proper care). If a body had been found and had proved to match against my DNA (to save my father from false hopes), it would have been a very great comfort to him (even if getting him to a burial would have been a major operation). I somehow got the feeling that the name on the Tyne Cot wall, whilst commemorating his father, also carried all sorts of other memories, "unable to recover the body", "no known grave", "lost", etc. He always said that the photo of him there always made him cry.

David

[Herekawe]

Hi

Wouldn't the solution be to sample all bodies recovered from now on and have samples preserved even if the actual DNA testing wasn't done immediately. DNA Testing may be expensive now but in a few years it may be much cheaper per test. That way their samples are preserved for the future. In the Fromelle case the opportunity arose as the bodies were to be recovered and moved. If they were being left in situ the question of DNA testing wouldn't have arisen.

I cannot imagine there would be much support for digging up chaps who have been peacefully resting for years on the off chance of identifying them.

But I would hate to think that just because of a possible future worry, which may or may not occur about creating a precedent by sampling newly recovered bodies leading to sampling the those already buried unidentified, that soldiers whose bodies are recovered from now one lose their chance of being identified.

Who knows, given the pace of technology one day you may be able to insert a small probe, or through some completely uninvasive technique, gain DNA samples from the unidentified. However that may well be for another generation to ponder.

Regards

James

[Tyrim]

Sorry to be so long in replying.

Herekawe, What you say makes perfect sense.

As for questons about where the line is to be drawn, there's an enormous difference between disturbing soldiers' remains that have been properly buried and the remains that have been disturbed by farming, archeological digs or construction. These newly found casualties have never been cared for in a proper way and have the right to be treated with our utmost care and attention. They have earned it!

Does anyone imagine for a moment that if DNA testing had been available in 1918 they would not have used it to identify the unknowns that were found at that time? It wasn't, so they couldn't. Now it is, so how can we honorably deny it to them?

tyrim

[Ralphed]

I would not want any current 'known unto god' graves reopened for DNA testing.

However any remains found in some corner of France/Belguim today,they should have DNA taken. And if and it's a big IF any one want's to come forward and see if they are a match,all well and good.

[dfaulder]

I think these last posts highlight an issue about which we need to be very careful. For if we are not, some selective leaking from Whitehall along the lines that "campaigners are wanting to dig-up the dead and build a DNA database" will kill any campaign dead and save the exchequer a tiny amount of money.

I think Tyrim had it right a couple of posts ago when comparing identification in the "clearance years", they had a set of techniques then - if DNA sampling had been available it is almost certain they would have used it. Therefore it seems (at least to me) that such sampling should be used wherever possible whenever remains are discovered.

• To me this would include the circumstances when an area is being cleared prior to development (e.g. new building or road construction) and archaeological investigations are carried out which give rise to the discovery of remains. (This is the only potential circumstance where I could see existing known graves being exhumed - where the development required exhumation anyway.)
• I suspect the professionals already have a "de minimus" rule as to what constitutes "remains" and as far as any campaign is involved I do not see that this rule needs to be challenged or even identified (unless used as a cloak behind which to hide significant finds).

There is a widespread antipathy (which I share) towards "DNA testing" and "DNA databases", so any campaign also has to make it clear (osvaldo's point) that matching DNA samples from remains to current-day relatives is entirely dependent on current-day relatives coming forward and volunteering samples for this purpose and this purpose only (preferably to an organisation independent of "the state"). But for that to happen we need to get over the reluctance to publicise any discoveries - no publicity and no relatives come forward!

When a discovery is publicised, perhaps that is where amateur groups/individuals (such as ourselves and WFA) can start to try and identify who fought in the area and create a short-list of who is unaccounted for. If it was known that these processes (DNA sampling of remains, creation of short-lists of the missing, and potential testing of relatives who came forward) were available, it is likely that relatives of the missing (who are interested) might research their genealogy. If their researches (excluding present-day generations) were on the likes of Ancestry or Genes-reunited, short-lists of the missing could be matched to genealogies relatively easily.

David