What have you heard about genetic testing in the media? For example, has DNA testing played a key role in solving a crime? Determining the paternity of a child? What do you see as the pros and cons of genetic testing in these situations?

DNA testing and profiling has basically revolutionized crime solving around the world. In the early 1980s, DNA testing was very expensive, and it had limited accessibility and accuracy. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, DNA testing and profiling became much cheaper and more developed, and it soon became a standard procedure during all forensic investigations. Thus, many cold cases and crimes which were unsolved for years and even decades were reopened and reexamined using the new DNA testing procedures, and a big percentage of them were solved. Thus, in 1987, a man from Florida who committed rape and sexual assault was the first person that was convicted and prosecuted on the basis of ex post facto DNA evidence.
In forensic investigations, DNA testing is done in two ways: when the suspect is known or identified, DNA technology is used to compare the genetic information of the suspect with the genetic material and evidence found on the crime scene; when the suspect is not known or identified, DNA testing is done to compare the genetic material of the suspect with some known offenders in a database. Aside from being an incredibly helpful and powerful tool for identifying culprits, DNA technology is also used to absolve wrongly accused individuals.
As with many other aspects of forensic investigative techniques, there are also pros and cons with DNA testing and profiling as well. One of the main advantages of using DNA technology in forensic investigations is the fact that even the smallest amount of genetic evidence found on the crime scene can be sufficient to solve the crime and find the culprit. Another advantage is its accuracy; when tested correctly and thoroughly, DNA evidence is 99.9% accurate, as genetic material is unchangeable and unique. This also includes DNA tests done not only for the purpose of aiding a criminal investigation (for instance, a paternity test).
DNA technology is also commonly used in medicine and biological and genetic research, especially when scientists are trying to find or develop a cure for a certain genetic disease.
One of the main disadvantages of DNA testing is the fact that sometimes, the evidence is not conclusive, or it's simply not enough. As with everything else, DNA technology is also prone to human error; a contaminated specimen will be much less accurate and reliable. Thus, in criminal justice, DNA evidence is more often used to exclude suspects than to prove a suspect's involvement in the crime. Another disadvantage is its somewhat controversial history. In order to have a DNA system for identifying people, police departments and the federal government must take samples from everyone; however, not every person is willing to give their own genetic information to the state. Interestingly enough, today, more and more people willingly participate in genetic tests in order to find out more about their heritage or determine their relations to another individual.
Some recent information about DNA testing that I've read on the internet was about a cyber attack on a forensic company which is associated with the UK police; according to BBC,

Eurofins Forensic Services carries out DNA testing, toxicology analysis, firearms testing and computer forensics for police forces across the UK. Its parent company, Eurofins, suffered a ransomware attack on 1 or 2 June, which is under criminal investigation.

This only proves that giving out genetic material can sometimes be dangerous, as all technologies and computerized systems are vulnerable to cyber criminals.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48721511