Advertisement

Journal of Community Genetics

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 95–107 | Cite as

Property and human genetic information

  • Morten Ebbe Juul NielsenEmail author
  • Nana Cecilie Halmsted Kongsholm
  • Jens Schovsbo
Original Article
  • 117 Downloads

Abstract

Do donors (of samples from which genetic information is derived) have some sort of pre-legal (moral) or legal property right to that information? In this paper, we address this question from both a moral philosophical and a legal point of view. We argue that philosophical theories about property do not seem to support a positive answer: We have not mixed our labour with our genes, and the human genome cannot be said to be a fitting object for private ownership based on some idea of self-ownership. An analysis of the term ‘property’ as seen from a legal perspective yields the conclusion that property is, at best, a linguistic prop whose real content has to be defined at least partially conventionally. Relevant interests that may be seen to be protected seem to be interests of privacy or interests against exploitation. To the extent that the logic behind the patent system holds true limiting incentives decreases innovation in society. A balancing of interest must take place, and we have to make sure that patent protection serves general societal interests and not just those of special interest groups be that inventors or donors.

Keywords

Genetic information Patent law Property Property rights Donors 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Burk DL (2016) On the sociology of patenting (March 2, 2016). 101 Minnesota Law Review, 421 (2016); UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2016–15. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2740947
  2. Calabresi G, Douglas Melamed A (1972) Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: one view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review 85:1089–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cambon-Thomsen A (2004) The social and ethical issues of post-genomic human biobanks. Nature ReviewGenetics 5:866–873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eyal N (2012) Using informed consent to save trust. J Med Ethics 0:1–8Google Scholar
  5. Hansson MG (2009) Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer 100:8–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hellstadius Å (2015) A quest for clarity: reconstructing standards for the patent law morality exclusion. Dissertation, Stockholm UniversityGoogle Scholar
  7. Hellstadius A, Schovsbo J (2017) You told me, right? - free and informed consent in European Patent Law, University of Copenhagen Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2017–48. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3055116
  8. Holman CM (2016) Charting the contours of a copyright regime optimized for engineered genetic code. Oklahoma Law Review, Posted: 4 Sep 2016, SSRN https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2833948
  9. Hume D (1978), A treatise of human nature [1739]. Selby–Bigge, LA and Nidditch, PH (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaye J et al. (2011), Dynamic consent: a solution to a perennial problem? BMJ, 343, d6900-d6900. ISSN 1756–1833Google Scholar
  11. Lemley MA (2015) Faith-based intellectual property (March 30, 2015). 62 UCLA L REV 1328 Stanford Public Law Working Paper No 2587297.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2587297
  12. Lessig L (2005) Free culture—the nature and future of creativity. Penguin Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Lipworth W, Ankeny R, Kerridge I (2006) Consent in crisis: the need to reconceptualize consent to tissue banking research. Intern Med J 36:124–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Locke, J (2003) Two treatises of government and a letter concerning toleration [1689]. Shapiro, I. (ed.), New York: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Machlup F, Senate judiciary Comm., Subcomm. On patents etc., study no. 15, 85th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1958)Google Scholar
  16. Miller FG, Mello MM, Joffe S (2008) Incidental findings in human subjects research: what do investigators owe research participants? J Law Med Ethics 36(2):271–211.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00269.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Minssen T (2012) Assessing the inventiveness of bio-pharmaceuticals under US and European patent law. Dissertation, Lund UniversityGoogle Scholar
  18. Minssen T, Schovsbo J (2014) Legal aspects of biobanking as key issues for Personalized Medicine & Translational Exploitation. Personalized Medicine 11(5):497–508CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mittelstadt BD, Floridi L (eds) (2016) The ethics of biomedical big data. Springer Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Neethu R (2017) What the roll out of EU data legislation means for you. Nat Biotechnol 35(8):712–713CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, state and utopia. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Nwabueze RN (ed) (2007) Biotechnology and the challenge of property. Ashgate Publishing, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Doherty KC, Burgess MM, Edwards K, Gallagher RP, Hawkins AK, Kaye J, McCaffrey V, Winickoff DE (2011) From consent to institutions: designing adaptive governance for genomic biobanks. Soc Sci Med 73:367–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Ross A (1957) Tû-Tû. Harvard Law Review Vol. 70 1957 812 (Original Danish version in Festskrift til Henry Ussing (1951))Google Scholar
  25. Skloot R (2010) The immortal life of Henrietta lacks. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Sommer T (2013) Can law make life (too) simple? DJØF Publishing, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Sreenivasan G (2003) Does informed consent to research require comprehension? Lancet 362:2016–2018CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tavani HT (2007) Philosophical theories of privacy: implications for an adequate online policy. Metaphilosophy 38(1):1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tutton R (2010) Biobanking: social, political and ethical aspects. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences, January, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  30. Van Assche K, Gutwirth S, Sterckx S (2013) Protecting dignitary interests of biobank research participants: lessons from Havasupai tribe vs. Arizona Board of Regents. Law, Innovation and Technology 5(1):54–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Waldron J (2016) Property and ownership. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/. Accessed 10 August 2016
  32. Wertheimer A (1996) Exploitation. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nana Cecilie Halmsted Kongsholm
    • 2
  • Jens Schovsbo
    • 3
  1. 1.Faculty of Humanities & Department of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  2. 2.Faculty of HumanitiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagen SDenmark
  3. 3.Centre for Information and Innovation Law (CIIR), Faculty of LawCopenhagen UniversityCopenhagen SDenmark

Personalised recommendations