You might find this an interesting paper:
http://www.egyptstudy.org/Ostracon/Gree ... ne2001.pdf

I'm a bit confused, though. I thought that the SCA was not in favor of DNA at the present time, that it was too intrusive.

From what I have learned through someone I know only as "Salima", they find it intrusive because in most cases, it requires the removal of a tooth, which also means in many of the cases that the mouth must be opened (assuming it isn't already; pending whether the opening of the mouth ceremony was performed on the mummy itself or just on a figurine...).

This does not rule out the possibility of gathering DNA from other sources, which I don't know because I have never heard of them... I just know that people say "in most cases", which obviously leaves an open door for something rather than tooth removal.

The Salima you mention is probably Salima Ikram:
Dr. Salima Ikram has been teaching Egyptology at the American University in Cairo for six years. Her areas of specialty are Egyptian archaeology, mummification, both human and animal, cultural resource management with a focus on museums, experimental archaeology, zooarchaeology, ethnoarchaeology, and aspects of daily life in ancient Egypt. She is co-director of the Animal Mummy Project at the Egyptian Museum, Cairo, as well as the North Kharga Oasis Survey. Dr. Ikram has worked in Greece, Turkey, the Sudan and Egypt.
She is considered to be quite an athority on mummies, especially those of animals.

In the article I posted, it seems that the moving of mummies to new cases gave the "tester" bits of mummy pieces to use in DNA testing. It would seem to me that any such particals would be very corrupted, too much so for any accurate testing to be done.

I see your point... It's a shame they don't handle mummies in clean rooms. If you're going to do something, do it right...