The arguments for a comprehensive national DNA database in the interests of combating crime, terrorism and illegal immigration are, in my view, already overwhelming (and likely to become even stronger in future), but as you point out in today's editorial, "Backdoor DNA", forcing people into the database who object is fraught with difficulties. However, to argue that "young people growing up in the knowledge that the state held their DNA might be less inclined to murder, rob or rape, fearing there was a greater chance they would be caught" is definitely not the right attitude.

The right attitude, as far as I'm concerned, would be for all citizens to have the option of having their DNA profile stored in a Voluntary National DNA Database.

If a serious crime were committed in my street and the police suspected the culprit to be a local resident, I, and I am sure most other people, would be only too willing to offer our DNA in order to eliminate ourselves from the investigation. We'd be queuing up in our eagerness to have the crime solved and the culprit removed from our midst. And when the investigation was over and the culprit behind bars, I'd want the police to hang on to my profile, so that I can be immediately eliminated from any future investigations. That would help the police do their job and (it's not pure altruism) free me from the suspicion that, in our mass society of alienated individuals, virtually every man is under as a possible rapist or paedophile. Members of ethnic minorities would have the added advantage of being freed from suspicion of being terrorists or illegal immigrants.

No criminal, terrorist or illegal immigrant is going to volunteer his or her DNA, of course, but as more and more people join the voluntary database and the number of suspects is progressively reduced, it will make the job of the police less and less arduous.

Concerns relating to privacy and misuse are, I believe, greatly exaggerated (human rights lawyers have got their niches to fill and defend, like everyone else), and besides, such concerns pale into insignificance compared with those we should have relating to serious crime, terrorism and mass illegal immigration.

The biggest obstacle at the moment is the stigma attached to anyone having their DNA profile stored in the current database, because it is primarily a database of criminal profiles.

Instead of running scared and fearing the shame of being associated with actual or suspected criminals, those who volunteer their DNA to a voluntary national DNA database will be proud of it, while benefiting from the freedom from suspicion. Think what a great plus point it would be to have on your CV.

So, while politicians and the media spend the next 10 years or so debating the pros and cons of a compulsory national DNA database (unless a massive terrorist strike speeds the process up, along with the introduction of biometric ID cards), let the government set up a voluntary one for those, like myself, who are eager to be in it.

Eventually, this should lead to a division in society, between those comprising "anonymous society", much as we have today - where criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants and social parasites* (of the rich, poor, able and disabled varieties) depend on anonymity as a cover for their exploitation of others - and those comprising a "nonymous society"* of citizens who choose to be honest and open about who they are, including what they take from and contribute to society, and whose solidarity with each other will not be as easily exploited as it is at the moment, and always has been in the past. This has the potential to create a fair, humane and sustainable society with levels of social solidarity that are quite impossible in existing society.

*My definition (not unproblematic, I admit) of a "social parasite" is someone who takes from society without making a fair and proportionate contribution in return, or having an acceptable reason (decided by those who contribute) for not doing so. "Onymous" is, I believe, the more correct derivation from Greek for a word signifying the opposite to anonymous, but it sounds too much like "ominous"; thus my choice of "nonymous", at least until someone comes up with a better suggestion.