Abstract
The introductory chapter offers a detailed description of the themes that the reader can expect to find in this book, and a discussion of the social and academic relevance of the role and use of forensic genetic technologies in the criminal justice system. This introductory chapter provides the key concepts for the discussion of how developments in the application of forensic genetics can be understood as part of wider shifts in how the governance of criminality is enacted and made visible through the symbolic power invested in science and technology.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download chapter PDF
Keywords
The Role of Genetics in Crime Governance
Wherever it goes, the human body leaves traces behind: hair, saliva and other fluids, footprints and so on. Body’s materiality has been a key part of criminal investigations throughout history. The central role of the human body as the basis to identify authors of crimes has gained different shapes in the last 35 years, as forensic science became more commonplace in criminal justice systems.
Forensic science comprises a set of scientific disciplines and methodologies, whose goal is to help police-judicial procedures and activities. Among others, we can mention forensic toxicology, psychiatry and forensic psychology, anthropology and forensic odontology, criminalistics, biology and forensic genetics. This book will pay special attention to the last scientific discipline. Forensic genetics aims to identify with the greatest possible precision the biological origin of a sample, to help the justice system address and solve civil and criminal cases.
One of the most notable aspects of the use of forensic genetics in the field of criminal investigation is the ability to extract DNA profiles—a biological structure considered unique for every individual—from the samples collected at crime scenes or obtained from the bodies of people identified in the criminal investigation (e.g., suspects). This genetic information, if considered relevant by the professionals involved in the specific criminal investigation, may produce genetic evidence, which will subsequently be assessed in a court of criminal justice. This book proposes a sociological approach to the role and place of forensic genetics in the governance of crime in contemporary societies.
The concept governance of crime intends to highlight assumptions, discourses and strategies that shape this social sphere. The governance of crime encapsulates more than the social response to crime. It also incorporates new ways to monitor and control behaviours, as well as reconfigured forms to apply justice, which co-construct new concepts of order and social control (Garland, 2001). The concept of governance of crime will be, therefore, used throughout this book to show how the strategies applied to social groups considered as risky have gained a more managerial and less transformative tone (Feeley & Simon, 1992). We will frame in this context the growing, more expansive way that biometric technologies, in particular forensic genetics, have been applied to strategies pertaining to the governance of crime. By collecting, storing, exchanging and using genetic data on a large scale, new systems of social sorting are promoted and instituted (Lyon, 2002). These technological systems do not just act upon individuals, they create growingly elaborate ways, in terms of impact and reach, to monitor and control particular individuals and specific social groups. Finally, this concept also makes it possible to look beyond the way State structures govern current societies, in order to include other social institutions that also constitute the backbone of the governance of crime in contemporary societies. Such is the case of the networks producing scientific knowledge, making visible the symbolic power invested in science and technology. This also extends to non-governmental organizations, private companies, media, civil society and many others.
In current societies, genetics has an aura of objectivity, of being able to produce “certainties” and “truths” (Nelkin & Lindee, 1995). Such notions are interesting to explore in order to understand the crime governance aspects from a sociological point of view (Wilson-Kovacs, 2014). They reflect, among others, public perceptions of science and technology, crime and justice, as well as the relationship of trust (or lack thereof) between the citizen, the State and various prominent modern institutions. One of the reasons explaining the importance given to genetic information in criminal investigations is the scientific statute of molecular genetics (Lynch, Cole, McNally, & Jordan, 2008). From the perspective of several professional groups, from forensic scientists to criminal investigators, judges and prosecutors, attorneys and the general public, DNA technologies and forensic genetic databases allegedly generate “more scientific” information, “more capable” to identify offenders in a quick and credible way (Aas, 2006; Lynch, 2003; Lynch et al., 2008; Machado & Prainsack, 2012). As such, many commentators have emphasized that the presence of genetic technologies such as DNA profiling in policing and as forensic evidence in courts can improve the efficiency of the criminal justice system.
However, critical commentators have also speculated about the discriminatory potential of genetic technologies in the justice system, and the risks associated with their presumed infallibility in the identification of offenders. In this regard, social sciences have been especially critical about the social implications and policies deriving from genetic technologies bearing an exceptional status of complete ontological and mathematical certainty in contemporary societies (Hindmarsh & Prainsack, 2010; Kruse, 2016; Williams & Johnson, 2008). This “genetization” of social life (Heath, Rapp, & Taussig, 2004; Novas & Rose, 2000; Rabinow, 1996; Rose, 2007; Rose & Novas, 2005; Rouvroy, 2008; Wehling, 2011; Weiner, Martin, Richards, & Tutton, 2017) and the subsequent “genetization” of criminal investigations follow the determinations of what Theodore Porter (1995), North American science historian, designated as “mechanical objectivity”. Porter proposed this term to refer to the growing authority and symbolical power of “impersonal numbers” and statistics in various social, political and economic spheres, in detriment of human experiences and assessments (considered “subjective”).
This book portrays, under a critical sociological perspective, contemporary ways of reformulating the governance of crime through genetics. Such analysis is linked to a reflection of how the control of information flow and the management of inclusion and exclusion circuits is based upon calculations and risk prediction. It is important to note that this book presents itself as a critical reflection regarding the general enthusiasm shown towards the potential that genetics seemingly have to search and identify authors of crimes. In other words, beyond evaluating the plausibility of applying genetics to support criminal investigations and the operation of the justice system, the authors of this publication intend to question the social, cultural, political and ethical implications of using genetics in the field of the governance of crime.
Some questions addressed in this book are the following: What are the main trends of governance of crime in contemporary society through the lens of scientific knowledge and genetic technology? What place and role do genetics occupy in the criminal justice system? How can classical and contemporary social theory help to address current challenges posed by the social processes and interactions generated by the uses, meanings and expectations attributed to genetics in the governance of crime? Which methods and research techniques can be used by students and scholars to address some crucial aspects of this particular social reality? Which new challenges emerge from the recent paradigm shift within forensic genetics, moving from the construction of evidence to be presented in court to the production of intelligence to guide the course of a particular criminal investigation?
Book Overview
The scientific breakthroughs that have made it possible to use DNA as a tool of human identification began in the 1980s of the twentieth century. The first patent that would originate the modern processes of DNA profile extraction was registered by the biologist Jeffrey Glassberg (US) in 1983, and would subsequently be used by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In the UK, the biologist Alec Jeffreys from the University of Leicester developed a method to extract DNA profiles in late 1984. The first criminal case solved by this technique was the rape and murder of two teenagers, which took place from 1983 to 1986 in Narborough, Leicestershire (England). This criminal case gained widespread coverage, both because it involved a technological breakthrough and due to the circumstances of the investigation. The criminal investigators asked for blood samples of about 5000 men residing in the geographical area around the crime scene. The goal was to perform DNA analysis, which eventually exonerated a first suspect who had already confessed to the crimes. Afterwards, blood was collected from another man—Colin Pitchfork—and it was found that his genetic profile matched the DNA found in the crime scene. In other words, this individual was identified as the one responsible for both crimes following an analysis of DNA profiles.
This and other success stories have contributed to disseminate social representations that characterize DNA technologies as “crime fighting heroes”, a kind of “truth machines” promising to remove judicial errors from the equation and sentence the authors of crime (Lynch et al., 2008). However, these assumptions forgo the necessarily complex and varied understanding of social reality. The second chapter of this book will present a systematization of the approach taken by sociology and other social sciences that aim to critically discuss the widespread success stories of DNA technologies. These stories have grown to be more common in societies ruled by the mystique associated with genes, reflecting and reproducing social processes involving relationships of power, knowledge, hierarchization and social inequalities.
The consolidation of the role of genetics in social life has also invigorated old discussions about the role played by biological and biosocial approaches aiming to explain and predict violent and criminal behaviour (Duster, 2003). By extension, this type of debate raises issues linked to biological determinism, in a way that might lead to promote renewed insight and initiatives focused on matters of social exclusion, marginalization and stigmatization. As such, there is the need to undertake a historical and sociological overview of the biological explanations for anti-social, violent and criminal behaviour. Therefore, the third chapter of this book aims to provide a detailed description of the seminal work by Lombroso (nineteenth century) and highlights the risks of biological determinism and potential stigmatization raised by this line of research. It then discusses current trends of biologization and genetization of crime, by focusing on the specific studies in the fields of neurobiology and epigenetics.
State governance strategies have been fostered based upon DNA potential for individualization. They are supported by a rhetoric that celebrates the efficiency and infallibility of science and technology. At the same time, they reduce the space allowed for criticism or dissonant voices which do not follow the values and ideologies of the dominant social order. Taking a critical perspective of this scenario, the fourth chapter of this book describes and systematizes the approaches of social sciences to the presence of DNA evidence in court.
A significant number of studies undertaken since the mid-90s of the twentieth century, mainly in the US, have addressed the social implications and the transformations in professional cultures and practices stemming from the presence of DNA technologies in the criminal justice system. Such contributions highlight the way DNA technologies shape new ways of governance of crime with profound implications thereof in the social structure, citizen rights and democratic dynamics in current societies.
The substantial potential of the DNA profiling methods created and developed in the US and the UK at the tail-end of the 80s to support the identification of authors of crimes led to efforts by law enforcement authorities in the following decade to develop ways to add the genetic profiles of people with criminal records to computerized databases. Therefore, 1995 saw the creation of the first criminal database featuring genetic profiles on a national context: the UK National Criminal Intelligence DNA Database. Other countries have started processes to create their own national genetic databases. Namely, and to cite the largest databases currently existing in Europe, Austria and the Netherlands started theirs in 1997, Germany in 1998 and France in 2001.
A database of DNA profiles is constituted by a structured set of DNA profile files and personal data profiles, which can be accessed according to the predetermined legislation in effect in each country. These databases involve the collection, storage and use of genetic profiles belonging to identified suspects, convicted individuals, victims, voluntaries and other persons of interest to the criminal investigation. Nearly 69 countries are currently using forensic genetic databases, and there are estimates that this type of database is beginning to be implemented in about 34 other countries (Interpol, 2016). The fifth chapter of this book will present the different implications of the creation and development of forensic genetics databases, considering the necessary balance between curtailing civil rights and protecting society’s security.
Looking at forensic databases as a particularly ostentatious form of genetic surveillance of criminalized populations, we will discuss them within the scope of a society that is growingly focused on intensifying and accelerating the mass circulation and interlinking of data. In this context, the cultural and socio-economic phenomenon of big data is approached in this chapter as a part of a datafied society (Broeders & Dijstelbloem, 2016; French & Smith, 2016; Sadowski, 2019; Smith, 2016; van Dijck, 2014) where bio-surveillance technologies gain prominence. In other words, technologies based on processing information are linked to biological materials originating in the human body (Hindmarsh & Prainsack, 2010; Kloppenburg & van der Ploeg, 2018; Skinner, 2018b).
The forensic genetic databases and the associated DNA technologies are, therefore, continuously being expanded and developed, seeing as one of the facets of this expansion is also its growing interoperability. With the goal of strengthening police cooperation in the European Union, we have seen a rise in the number of international mechanisms for population surveillance and control. The sixth chapter focuses on this theme, particularly the way the opening of the European Union’s borders was followed by a proliferation of control mechanisms for transnational criminality. Among them, we outline the Prüm System, which represents a network created between EU Member States to exchange data stored in the national databases of various countries in the Union, with the goal of combating terrorism and cross-border criminality.
The implementation, development and expansion of the Prüm System have led to heated debates on issues of transparency, accountability and data privacy (McCartney, 2014; Prainsack & Toom, 2010; Toom, 2018; Toom, Granja, & Ludwig, 2019).
In a context marked by a datafied society, concepts such as ethnicity, race and national identity are recycled by the operators of forensic genetic databases as practical categories. These operational categories are mobilized as organizing principles and consequently sustained by a kind of rationality that assumes these categories as acquired data (Fujimura & Rajagopalan, 2011). However, several authors (Cole, 2007; Duster, 2006; Risher, 2009) have warned about the fact that new surveillance technologies have, inversely, reinforced the legitimacy of old prejudice and even created new ways to stigmatize and exclude, from the moment the surveillance technologies operate based on principles that separate suspect from non-suspect individuals (Van der Ploeg, 1999).
Following functional imperatives, a set of practices that would otherwise elicit some ethical reservations due to the curtailing of civil rights are applied to criminal investigations. In particular, we outline the following technologies: familial searching, that is, the act of looking up profiles in forensic DNA databases that are genetically close to a known sample that was collected at the crime scene (García, Crespillo, & Yurrebaso, 2017; Granja & Machado, 2019; Haimes, 2006; Murphy, 2010) and intelligence-led DNA massive screenings, consisting in collecting a significant number of DNA profiles in a specific area where the suspect is thought to reside (Chapin, 2004; Duster, 2008). In addition, the inference of geographical ancestry, performed upon determination of the statistical distribution of the genetic profiles by zone and the subsequent proximity of the known sample to a probable area of origin is used in tandem with the inference of physical features through DNA. The joint use of these two technologies is commonly known as forensic DNA phenotyping (M’charek, 2008; Queirós, 2019; Samuel & Prainsack, 2018, 2019; Skinner, 2018a; Vailly, 2017; Wienroth, 2018a, 2018b). The seventh chapter of this book will take a look at the use of these emerging DNA technologies and the notable scientific, ethical and legal controversies that have come to the fore.
Finally, the eighth and last chapter of the book will revisit, under a critical perspective, the multiplicity of roles and meanings of forensic genetics in the governance of crime in contemporary societies, while providing clues for future pathways for research in the field of social studies of forensic genetics.
References
Aas, K. F. (2006). “The body does not lie”: Identity, risk and trust in technoculture. Crime, Media, Culture, 2(2), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741659006065401
Broeders, D., & Dijstelbloem, H. (2016). The datafication of mobility and migration management: The mediating state. In I. Van der Ploeg & J. Pridmore (Eds.), Digitizing identities: Doing identity in a networked world (pp. 242–260). London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315756400
Chapin, A. B. (2004). Arresting DNA: Privacy expectations of free citizens versus post-convicted persons and the unconstitutionality of DNA dragnets. Minnesota Law Review, 89, 1842–1875. Retrieved from http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/mnlr89§ion=58
Cole, S. (2007). How much justice can technology afford? The impact of DNA technology on equal criminal justice. Science and Public Policy, 34(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234207X190991
van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.
Duster, T. (2003). Backdoor to eugenics. New York: Routledge.
Duster, T. (2006). The molecular reinscription of race: Unanticipated issues in biotechnology and forensic science. Patterns of Prejudice, 40(4–5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313220601020148
Duster, T. (2008). DNA dragnets and race: Larger social context, history and future. GeneWatch, 21(3–4), 3–5. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:DNA+Dragnets+and+Race+:+Larger+Social+Context+,+History+and+Future#1
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
French, M., & Smith, G. (2016). Surveillance and embodiment: Dispositifs of capture. Body & Society, 22(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X16643169
Fujimura, J., & Rajagopalan, R. (2011). Different differences: The use of “genetic ancestry” versus race in biomedical human genetic research. Social Studies of Science, 41(1), 5–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312710379170
García, Ó., Crespillo, M., & Yurrebaso, I. (2017). Suspects identification through “familial searching” in DNA databases of criminal interest. Social, ethical and scientific implications. Spanish Journal of Legal Medicine, 43(1), 26–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.remle.2017.02.002
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Granja, R., & Machado, H. (2019). Ethical controversies of familial searching: The views of stakeholders in the United Kingdom and in Poland. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(6), 1068–1092. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919828219
Haimes, E. (2006). Social and ethical issues in the use of familial searching in forensic investigations: Insights from family and kinship studies. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 34(2), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00032.x
Heath, D., Rapp, R., & Taussig, K.-S. (2004). Genetic citizenship. In D. Nugent & J. Vincent (Eds.), A companion to the anthropology of politics (pp. 152–167). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hindmarsh, R., & Prainsack, B. (Eds.). (2010). Genetic suspects: Global governance of forensic DNA profiling and databasing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Interpol. (2016). Global DNA profiling survey results 2016. Lyon.
Kloppenburg, S., & van der Ploeg, I. (2018). Securing identities: Biometric technologies and the enactment of human bodily differences. Science as Culture, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2018.1519534
Kruse, C. (2016). The social life of forensic evidence. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Lynch, M. (2003). God’s signature: DNA profiling, the new gold standard in forensic science. Endeavour, 27(2), 93–97.
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R., & Jordan, K. (2008). Truth machine: The contentious history of DNA fingerprinting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lyon, D. (2002). Surveillance as social sorting. Hoboken: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
M’charek, A. (2008). Silent witness, articulate collective: DNA evidence and the inference of visible traits. Bioethics, 22(9), 519–528. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00699.x
Machado, H., & Prainsack, B. (2012). Tracing technologies: Prisoners’ views in the era of CSI. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
McCartney, C. (2014). Transnational exchange of forensic evidence. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 5302–5313). New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2
Murphy, E. (2010). Relative doubt: Familial searches of DNA databases. Michigan Law Review, 109(3), 291–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/25759291
Nelkin, D., & Lindee, M. S. (1995). The DNA mystique: The gene as a cultural icon. New York: W H. Freeman.
Novas, C., & Rose, N. (2000). Genetic risk and the birth of the somatic individual. Economy and Society, 29(4), 485–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140050174750
Porter, T. M. (1995). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Prainsack, B., & Toom, V. (2010). The Prüm regime. Situated dis/empowerment in transnational DNA profile exchange. British Journal of Criminology, 50(6), 1117–1135. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq055
Queirós, F. (2019). The visibilities and invisibilities of race entangled with forensic DNA phenotyping technology. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 68, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JFLM.2019.08.002
Rabinow, P. (1996). Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality. In Essays on the anthropology of reason (pp. 91–111). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Risher, M. T. (2009). Racial disparities in databanking of DNA profiles. GeneWatch, 22(3–4), 22–24. Retrieved from http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/BBIQ0EKC20.pdf
Rose, N. (2007). The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Rose, N., & Novas, C. (2005). Biological citizenship. In S. J. Collier & A. Ong (Eds.), Global assemblages: Technology, politics, and ethics as anthropological problems (pp. 439–463). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Rouvroy, A. (2008). Human genes and neoliberal governance: A Foucauldian critique. New York: Routledge-Cavendish.
Sadowski, J. (2019). When data is capital: Datafication, accumulation, and extraction. Big Data & Society, 6(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718820549
Samuel, G., & Prainsack, B. (2018). Forensic DNA phenotyping in Europe: views “on the ground” from those who have a professional stake in the technology. New Genetics and Society, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2018.1549984
Samuel, G., & Prainsack, B. (2019). Civil society stakeholder views on forensic DNA phenotyping: Balancing risks and benefits. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 43, 102157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.102157
Skinner, D. (2018a). Forensic genetics and the prediction of race: What is the problem? BioSocieties, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-018-0141-0
Skinner, D. (2018b). Race, racism and identification in the era of technosecurity. Science as Culture, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2018.1523887
Smith, G. (2016). Surveillance, data and embodiment: On the work of being watched. Body & Society, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1357034X15623622
Toom, V. (2018). Cross-border exchange and comparison of forensic DNA data in the context of the Prüm Decision. Civil liberties, justice and home affairs. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2018)604971
Toom, V., Granja, R., & Ludwig, A. (2019). The Prüm Decisions as an aspirational regime: Reviewing a decade of cross-border exchange and comparison of forensic DNA data. Forensic Science International: Genetics, 41, 50–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsigen.2019.03.023
Vailly, J. (2017). The politics of suspects’ geo-genetic origin in France: The conditions, expression, and effects of problematisation. BioSocieties, 12(1), 66–88. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-016-0028-x
Van der Ploeg, I. (1999). Written on the body: Biometrics and identity. Computers and Society, March, 37–44.
Wehling, P. (2011). Biology, citizenship and the government of biomedicine: exploring the concept of biological citizenship. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Governmentality. Current issues and future challenges (pp. 225–246). New York: Routledge.
Weiner, K., Martin, P., Richards, M., & Tutton, R. (2017). Have we seen the geneticisation of society? Expectations and evidence. Sociology of Health and Illness, 39(7), 989–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9566.12551
Wienroth, M. (2018a). Governing anticipatory technology practices. Forensic DNA phenotyping and the forensic genetics community in Europe. New Genetics and Society, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14636778.2018.1469975
Wienroth, M. (2018b). Socio-technical disagreements as ethical fora: Parabon NanoLab’s forensic DNA Snapshot™ service at the intersection of discourses around robust science, technology validation, and commerce. BioSocieties, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41292-018-0138-8
Williams, R., & Johnson, P. (2008). Genetic policing: The use of DNA in criminal investigations. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Wilson-Kovacs, D. (2014). “Backroom Boys”: Occupational dynamics in crime scene examination. Sociology, 48(4), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038513503741
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Machado, H., Granja, R. (2020). Introduction. In: Forensic Genetics in the Governance of Crime. Palgrave Pivot, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2429-5_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2429-5_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2428-8
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2429-5
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)