Who owns your DNA???

Wyatt

You do until it leaves your body, but then who? I'm not talking about baby mayo. I'd like to talk about who owns your DNA once it leaves you body. Lets say you visit a doctor to have a minor growth removed, and she ,without your consent, saves a sample and uses it in her private research. Through this research she makes a ground breaking discovery in medicine and is now richer then Jesus. You don't get anything. Maybe... You didn't do any of the work. It wasn't your idea. But could your cell be considered a sort of capital that you can still lay a claim on? In the future, it maybe possible to collect DNA from a doorknob and eventually make your clone. Do you get a say in this? You "left" you skin cells behind for any old mad super scientist to pick up.

Other note: Should insurance companies be allowed to use your DNA to test for "genetic defects" and change/deny your coverage based on your DNA instead of your lifestyle?

Article that provoked this biomedical ethics discussion: Who owns your cells?????

Rym

. Lets say you visit a doctor to have a minor growth removed, and she ,without your consent, saves a sample and uses it in her private research. Through this research she makes a ground breaking discovery in medicine and is now richer then Jesus. You don't get anything. Maybe... You didn't do any of the work. It wasn't your idea. But could your cell be considered a sort of capital that you can still lay a claim on? In the future, it maybe possible to collect DNA from a doorknob and eventually make your clone. Do you get a say in this? You "left" you skin cells behind for any old mad super scientist to pick up.

I say no rights for the former owner.

Should insurance companies be allowed to use your DNA to test for "genetic defects" and change/deny your coverage based on your DNA instead of your lifestyle?

Technically, they should be able to insure as an informed decision. But, if we agree that insurance is a public right, they shouldn't be able to use certain information adversely.

Ideally, health care is public, and this information is used only to better treat disease and plan for the economic realities of doing so.

Dr. Timo

The problem with "all men being created equal" is that, unfortunately, they aren't. Once genetic sequencing is cheap enough to be sold at Walmart, you have to institute public universal health care, since commercial insurance can not operate with a self selecting customer base while still adhering to certain constitutional anti-discrimination tenets.

Lyddi

Other note: Should insurance companies be allowed to use your DNA to test for "genetic defects" and change/deny your coverage based on your DNA instead of your lifestyle?

If this happened, I would never be able to get insurance for myself. My family has a bad history of heart disease and cancer. I am perfectly healthy myself, but of course they wouldn't care. Way too many other people would be in the same boat.
They just want their money and don't care about people's lives. (I am a little upset right now bc I currently can't find affordable insurance, blargh.)

Apreche

The problem with "all men being created equal" is that, unfortunately, they aren't. Once genetic sequencing is cheap enough to be sold at Walmart, you have to institute public universal health care, since commercial insurance can not operate with a self selecting customer base while still adhering to certain constitutional anti-discrimination tenets.

Technology and science advance faster than law can change to deal with it. Been saying this for over a decade.

A DNA sequence is just a number, it shouldn't be ownable in any way. However, a particular physical piece of DNA should be property, just like any other. For example, I own the hair on my head, but if I go to the barber, he owns whatever he cuts off, unless I take it with me.

As for analyzing DNA for insurance purposes, I think it clearly demonstrates that even the fundamental idea of insurance is greatly flawed, and it must be replaced by something else entirely. Insurance is, and always has been, just another word for gambling. And the house, the insurance company, always wins. If you are betting on your health, and more information about your health becomes available, they would be stupid to not change the odds of the game accordingly to maintain the house advantage. Likewise, you would also be stupid to keep playing.

For example, you find out that you are almost definitely going to get cancer very soon. You want insurance since the premium hopefully would be less than the cost of the treatment since all the money from the healthy people's premiums would be helping you out. However, the healthy people find out that they are going to be very healthy, so they reduce coverage significantly, or they get rid of insurance entirely. Gambling doesn't work when it's no longer a game of chance.

Imagine if a casino had a machine that detected who was going to win, and who was going to lose. They would be stupid not to use it. If they used it, they would just kick out the winners and prevent them from playing. But then everyone in the casino knows they are going to lose, so they leave. The casino is now empty. The solution is not to ban the machine which detects who is going to win and lose, or to ban its use. The solution is to get rid of the casino and get something else.

Lyddi

The problem with "all men being created equal" is that, unfortunately, they aren't. Once genetic sequencing is cheap enough to be sold at Walmart, you have to institute public universal health care, since commercial insurance can not operate with a self selecting customer base while still adhering to certain constitutional anti-discrimination tenets.

Technology and science advance faster than law can change to deal with it. Been saying this for over a decade.

A DNA sequence is just a number, it shouldn't be ownable in any way. However, a particular physical piece of DNA should be property, just like any other. For example, I own the hair on my head, but if I go to the barber, he owns whatever he cuts off, unless I take it with me.

As for analyzing DNA for insurance purposes, I think it clearly demonstrates that even the fundamental idea of insurance is greatly flawed, and it must be replaced by something else entirely. Insurance is, and always has been, just another word for gambling. And the house, the insurance company, always wins. If you are betting on your health, and more information about your health becomes available, they would be stupid to not change the odds of the game accordingly to maintain the house advantage. Likewise, you would also be stupid to keep playing.

For example, you find out that you are almost definitely going to get cancer very soon. You want insurance since the premium hopefully would be less than the cost of the treatment since all the money from the healthy people's premiums would be helping you out. However, the healthy people find out that they are going to be very healthy, so they reduce coverage significantly, or they get rid of insurance entirely. Gambling doesn't work when it's no longer a game of chance.

This is how I feel. In fact, I told Andrew recently that insurance is gambling, and he didn't believe me :P
I am considering not getting insurance, but I am too afraid of getting in a car accident or something. Do I gamble and throw tons of money I can barely afford at them that I will never see again, or will I be "lucky" and get my money back or save money by having to go to the hospital.

And what sucks even worse, if you knew you were going to get cancer, or anything else, they would never accept you in the first place. (Unless you could successfully hide it from them). Or they would just increase your premium so much that they would still be making money off of you, and it wouldn't be worth it anyway.

TheWhaleShark

Technically, they should be able to insure as an informed decision.

The problem is that a pure DNA analysis will not necessarily guarantee that the detected defect will actually manifest in a significant way. Unless the people making that decision are very highly skilled scientists who work with those sorts of defects routinely, they won't actually have a sufficient knowledge base to make a truly informed decision.

In other words, if the scientists who are studying it can't draw that sort of conclusion, nobody can really draw that conclusion. Allowing people to use information of that caliber without having the requisite knowledge to draw useful and meaningful conclusions is an extremely dangerous proposition.

Apreche

In other words, if the scientists who are studying it can't draw that sort of conclusion,nobodycan really draw that conclusion. Allowing people to use information of that caliber without having the requisite knowledge to draw useful and meaningful conclusions is an extremely dangerous proposition.

Well, I'm not too worried about this. Casinos and insurance companies don't fuck around. The actuaries make fucking sure that if they are going to raise or lower premiums, that their information is right. For example, if the condition of a horse in an upcoming race is questionable, all bets are off until it's checked out and verified for absolute certain. The house always wins because they make damn sure the house always wins. If they were going to change their premiums based on DNA information, they would verify that shit times infinity. I'd bet they would even do a better job than doctors, since they have so much more at stake they would pay the best people and do the most thorough job possible. Because that's how they do.

If indeed they got it wrong, it would only benefit us. If you were healthy, they would charge more, and you would reject the insurance resulting in huge savings. If you were unhealthy, you would pay less, and make a big win when you filed your claims.

TheWhaleShark

If they were going to change their premiums based on DNA information, they would verify that shit times infinity.

I'm referring more to denying coverage based on the presence of certain genetic markers, which may or may not actually be significant. But then, that also relates back to the problem of insurance being the primary way in which people get health care.

Victor Frost

GATTACA

WindUpBird

I say no rights for the former owner.

I say no rights for the clone. Cloning should come with mandatory ablation of the hippocampus and amygdala, unless its being used as a sleeve for the consciousness of the person it was cloned from.

GreyHuge

Cloning will make a completely different person. So long as the clone is treated with the kindness and respect due a human being I have no problem. Now, on making money from your DNA, you must remember that all the DNA in your body has been copied from your parents and they in turn had copied the DNA from their parents. It is thus that I must say, unless we want to throw everyone into prison for pirating DNA, that human DNA is property of the entire human race/public domain. Free use, if you will.

...

I can agree with Grey's point. In the case of the doctor however I would personally prefer to be asked, or at least informed, first and in all cases I would want to stay anonymous. No "How does it feel to be the owner of the DNA that caused the break-through in cancer research???" reporters in my face.

WindUpBird

No, independent assortment "remixes" your parent's DNA into a unique form. It's not a perfect copy. The English language exists, but I don't pirate a dictionary when I write a book.

Feel free to build new people by remixing DNA, even in vats. But if a perfect copy is ever achieved, you have a dangerous element. A doppelganger who is indistinguishable from his "twin" by any method of modern science.

Also, on a different note, I'm not sure HeLa's "family" has any real claim to royalties on that tissue. It's an immortal lump of tumorous growth. It is not a conscious entity.

...

A doppelganger who is indistinguishable from his "twin" by any method of modern science.

Physical age.

Jason

DNA is a biometric, like fingerprints. Who owns your fingerprints? The Electronic Privacy Information Center says the issue hasn't been adequately addressed because technological progress is outpacing legislative progress. Article.

WindUpBird

A doppelganger who is indistinguishable from his "twin" by any method of modern science.

Physical age.

Doesn't matter. If my perfect clone murders a man with no eyewitnesses, and only DNA and fingerprints are left, I might as well have murdered him. You don't really leave age at the scene.

Easiest route: DNA sources should have total rule over their clones. Free them if you want, or destroy their minds and farm them for organs.

...

You don't really leave age at the scene.

Telomeres. You could potentially resolve that problem that way.

WindUpBird

Clever boy. I'll buy it, but I'm sticking with the fact that the oldest copy holds the keys to the kingdom.

HungryJoe

Technology and science advance faster than law can change to deal with it. Been saying this for over a decade.

Spock said it on TOS more than 40 years ago. You're not exactly the first person to have this epiphany.

...

Who cares? He probably heard it from someone else yeah, but that doesn't mean it's not his own unique and brand-new idea.

WindUpBird

Heard it from someone else...but that doesn't mean it's not [your] own unique and brand-new idea.

Apreche's Canon.

...

Apreche's Cannon.

It bombards enemies with infallibility.

WindUpBird

Apreche's Cannon.

It bombards enemies with infallibility.

Fired with hot air.

...

Apreche's Cannon.

It bombards enemies with infallibility.

Fired with hot air.

It's rapid-fire and loud.

GreyHuge

A doppelganger who is indistinguishable from his "twin" by any method of modern science.

Physical age.

Doesn't matter. If my perfect clone murders a man with no eyewitnesses, and only DNA and fingerprints are left, I might as well have murdered him. You don't really leave age at the scene.

Easiest route: DNA sources should have total rule over their clones. Free them if you want, or destroy their minds and farm them for organs.

How long will it take my clone to become capable of killing someone? 10, 15, 20 years? If this is the magnificent plan to get me booked on false charges, then that is some dedication right there.
If I am not mistaken fingerprints are not inherited, so I'm off the hook. You need to realize that DNA is not the only thing that makes a person, embryology is important, as well as experiences post-birth. A clone will be completely different than the person it was made from.

...

as well as experiences post-birth.

Like scars from accidents/operations, or something like African women stretching their necks with more and more rings, or women in China forced to wear small shoes to keep their feet from growing. Your diet and exposure to the elements as a child matter. The length of your hair can even set you free if any hairs were left behind. Also telomeres, though this might be useless depending on how telomerase works. I suspect it might just keep attaching telomeres regardless of initial situation.

Nuri

According to the property law I've read, once your DNA leaves your body it is deemed abandoned property. Losers weepers. There, problem solved. Especially since "ownership" is a legal concept.

Doesn't matter. If my perfect clone murders a man with no eyewitnesses, and only DNA and fingerprints are left, I might as well have murdered him. You don't really leave age at the scene.

I can't point out all the reasons why this is a dumb statement. First of all, DNA results alone are not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How would you even be a suspect if your clone had no relation to you? Do you think cops have some magic DNA database of everyone in the world that they can just search? They would have to pick you up as a suspect first to know to use you for a DNA comparison. What about your alibi? If you weren't murdering the guy, then you were somewhere else. Maybe you were with people? At a movie? In class? At work?

Identical twins share DNA as well. The situation with DNA evidence is not what you seem to think it is.

WindUpBird

Identical twins share DNA as well. The situation with DNA evidence is not what you seem to think it is.

It's not 100% identical. A perfect clone would be, or a line of my cells made without permission.

Anywho, I suppose it doesn't matter. I just don't want identical clones of me running around without my permission.

Also telomeres, though this might be useless depending on how telomerase works. I suspect it might just keep attaching telomeres regardless of initial situation.

Yeah. But then you get cancer.

...

It's not 100% identical.

... IDENTICAL TWINS, ALSO KNOWN AS MONOZYGOTIC TWINS SHARE THE EXACT SAME DNA. The only possible differences can stem from individual mutations which could seriously fuck up the embryo stage and there's little chance of such a minor mutation perpetuating once the child is fully developed.

Yeah. But then you get cancer.

... no, quite the opposite. B- and T-memory cells are cells you really want to keep around for as long as possible. Also, it's great for sperm. Otherwise the human race would've died after 1 generation.

TheWhaleShark

Also, on a different note, I'm not sure HeLa's "family" has any real claim to royalties on that tissue. It's an immortal lump of tumorous growth. It isnota conscious entity.

The HeLa case is very specifically addressed in scientific ethics discussions, and the consensus of the scientific community is that while we are technically correct in saying that you don't own the stuff we scrape out of you, the HeLa case is also super douchey. Don't be a super douche.

The proper ethical thing to do is to obtain a patient's consent if you think their stuff is usable for something. Give them credit in a paper. Royalties? I dunno about that.

... no, quite the opposite

No, you get cancer if you don't regulate the expression of telomerase somehow. Those cells that need to divide frequently already express high levels of telomerase anyway. If you add to that, you'll get rampant, uncontrolled growth.