A lot of things can be done with your DNA, you should own it! Dr Anneke Lucassen, a clinical geneticist at the University of Southampton, believes that if anyone is to own genetic information, it has to be all those who have inherited it and, more importantly, it must be available to all those who might be at risk. It's more to reason that DNA is part of a genetic public domain that anyone and everyone can use for the betterment of all people. The only good thing about the early rush to patent DNA sequences is that most of them will expire before anyone gets around to needing to use them. Are High-Protein Total Diet Replacements the Key to Maintaining Healthy Weight? Would it be OK to let Joe Random Scientist patent this gene and market The Perfect Gene as therapy? The next best thing to do is to block out patents by saying "That's not yours to patent". Therefore Moore was not entitled to any money made through the commercializati of his cancer. ...better be my property. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. Zebra Finches Unmask the Bird Behind the Song, Most Effective Strategies to Cut COVID-19 Spread, Memory 'Fingerprints' Reveal Brain Organization, Geology at Mars' Equator: Ancient Megaflood, Healthy Sleep Habits Cut Risk of Heart Failure, NASA's SpaceX Crew-1 Astronauts Headed to ISS, Owning a Dog Is Influenced by Our Genetic Make-Up, Genetic Study of Impulsiveness Reveals Associations With Psychiatric Disorders, Study Reveals Privacy Issues in Smartphone Headache Apps, Hyperbaric Oxygen Treatment: Clinical Trial Reverses Two Biological Processes Associated With Aging in Human Cells, Go (Over) Easy on the Eggs: 'Egg-Cess' Consumption Linked to Diabetes. We all share our genetic make up with relatives, but should we also share ownership of the results of DNA analysis or should this knowledge be considered private? Filed Under: dna, privacy, property rights, [ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ], Have a Techdirt Account? This feature is only available to registered users. The court found that people could not have property rights in their own tissues for a variety of reasons, both practical and moral. So, you should be asking what incentive did they have. ScienceDaily. Nevertheless, confidentiality is rarely seen as absolute, and there are both statutory and professional guidelines on exceptions to the duty of confidentiality. Slavery. Someone better ask Henrietta Lacks her opinion. Each of us can now explore our own DNA. Without DNA property rights, what incentive would I have to create my DNA? Is it reasonable that one would really have a property right in the DNA left behind on a discarded paper cup? At first glance, the answer would appear to be yes. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. The second problem is when an individual forbids health professionals to release or to use genetic test results to provide more accurate or relevant medical advice to their relatives. We don’t believe it should be sold, traded, or bartered.” Yet, we’ve already seen that their policy with respect to selling data is the same as the other companies. British Medical Journal. It's very important now with services like 23andme.com and ancestry.com offering services to check your DNA, but don't disclose whether they keep samples of your DNA. Today, individuals may seek genetic testing in a medical setting, or through a Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) company, for the purpose of understanding disease risk, ancestry, and/or paternity. The question, she says, is how to balance a right to privacy with disclosing risks to others. Once family members know that a relative has been diagnosed with a particular genetic condition, Professor Clarke argues that the more detailed, technical information (such as the precise mutation causing the disease in the family) belongs to the laboratory or the health service that generated it and not to either the individual or the family. Is DNA property? Suppose I have been given full permission to examine the genome of your spouse and children, but not yours. It would be a discovery, not an invention, but the patent system no longer recognizes that difference. Your siblings are likely to share a significant amount of similar DNA. No, I thought not. For example, in a genetic linkage study looking at the pattern of sharing of DNA sequences. Yet another case where you plant a POISON PILL. DNA should be the property of the person and protected like that person's medical records. Patient confidentiality is of course one of the most important cornerstones of medical practice, she writes. But Professor Angus Clarke at the Institute of Medical Genetics in Cardiff argues that genetic information should be regarded as private and personal. Nonsense post is nonsense. "Who Should 'Own' Genetic Information?." ScienceDaily, 9 July 2007. Who Should 'Own' Genetic Information?. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily, its staff, its contributors, or its partners. He argues that genetic disorders are not sufficiently similar to infectious diseases such as gonorrhoea, syphilis and HIV, that doctors have a duty to enforce disclosure by patients or clients to other members of their family. Sign in now. ...the opposite thing: people with superior genes. Register here, Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter. I can't imagine it being anyone else's property. Questions? This might have unforseeable and undesirable consequences.[/i]. [i]If we discriminate against people with "bad" genes, we are directing the course of evolution. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. Will Parler Users Treat Its 'Glitch' That Hid Georgia Election Content The Same Way They Treated A Twitter Glitch? Your silly nattering over the right way to do so doesn't at all help to preserve our liberties, Mike. (2007, July 9). Have any problems using the site? It is not clear to me though, by glancing at that patent, if the patent covers just the cell line and the molecules it excretes or also the ability to maintain that type of cell. Note that I haven't communicated your genome to anyone, nor used it for any purpose, but I am in possession of your "property". Genetic companies, popular with people looking for clues into their family histories, collect and analyze participants’ data from their DNA to perform their service. Methods for sharing information need to be sensitive and relevant, she says, but today’s increasingly individualistic modern medicine must find ways of facilitating this. That's how evolution works. That will not save us. Regarding particular breeds of plants, animals, etc, I do think there should some set of incentives to keep master breeders from getting years of trial and error and hard work motivated. British Medical Journal. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. You are right though, if we let them take away our DNA property rights no one is going to engage in sex and we'll see the collapse of human civilization and the end to humans as a species.