No more than fingerprints. DNA is evidence, not compelled testimony. It is just sure-fire.
I always think how ironic it was that the case that brought DNA to the forefront was the only case (near as I can tell) that didn't make it a lock (OJ).
Ok, so DNA left at the scene of a crime is indeed evidence. But..you've got to tie the DNA to the suspect.
In order to do that the suspect must supply a DNA sample, either willingly or forced. What if he refuses? Can he not refuse under the Fifth Amendment?
Providing DNA is tantamount to testifying against oneself, in my opinion.