Ultimately, DNA is what makes you unique. But do you actually own it?
◊
A small child stamps her feet and declares, “You’re not the boss of me!” The phrase is common in children coming to an age when they want to assert their independence from parental authority. But why should anyone – child or not – think they cannot be told what to do? Perhaps, at least in the Western tradition of thinking about individual freedom, it’s got something to do with our self-conception.
Seventeenth-century English polymath John Locke claimed that individuals naturally have a right to self-ownership. More specifically, in his Second Treatise of Government, Locke asserts that “every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.” This right is to be recognized as foundational in a social contract. Other thinkers have similarly claimed such a right.
If Locke, et al., are correct, it would seem that, even if you have no other basic right, you alone have a right to your body. Consequently, no one can legitimately claim your body as their own. Since nothing is more fundamental to an individual than their DNA, it should follow that no one can legitimately own another’s DNA. But it doesn’t. Why?
Check out this two-part MagellanTV documentary to learn how genetics has powerfully influenced human evolution.
Before we tackle that question, let’s briefly discuss what DNA is and why anyone would want control over another’s material makeup. Don’t worry! We won’t get too deep in the scientific weeds, but it is helpful to think about some of the details.
What Is DNA?
Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is the basic material stuff of almost every organism. (Since not every cell has DNA, and a cell is considered an organism, not every organism has DNA.) This particular acid is a molecule, containing four nucleotides: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T). A nucleotide consists of at least one nitrogen atom, a sugar molecule, and a phosphate atom bonded to four oxygen atoms. The way these elements are structured yields the so-called double-helix ladder model.
The DNA molecule was first discovered in 1869 by Swiss chemist Friedrich Miescher. Miescher’s name, however, doesn’t come to mind when most people think about the discovery of DNA and the process whereby the entire sequence of DNA was “mapped.” Those names are, respectively, Francis Crick and James Watson for the discovery, and Francis Collins and Craig Venter for the mapping.
In 1953, molecular biologists Watson and Crick inferred the double-helix structure from the experimental results of work done (independently) by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. By 2003, physicist and geneticist Francis Collins, and biochemist and geneticist Craig Venter, completed the human genome map.
(Credit: Adobe Stock)
Collins had led the publicly funded Human Genome Project, and Venter had formed his own group of privately funded researchers. After initially working as competitors, Collins and Venter were brought together to collaborate, with a draft map completed in 2000.
Why Is DNA Important?
Thankfully, for our purposes, further details aren’t required! Suffice it to say, since mutations occur during DNA replications, there are slight variations in otherwise shared human DNA. What makes DNA so intriguing is that it is the encoded instructions for the development of an individual – it’s what makes us all humans, on one hand, but unique individuals on the other. You might say that an individual’s DNA uniqueness is like their fingerprint in that everyone has fingerprints, but no one has identical configurations.
Now let’s think about two common ways that a person’s DNA is used: diagnosing medical conditions and criminal identification. Some people have had DNA tests to determine the likelihood they will develop particular diseases. Since DNA is inherited, and some diseases are passed from one or both biological parents, knowing the likelihood of having inherited a problematic gene can be lifesaving, or at least allow an individual to prepare for a possible or probable eventuality.
Among the deadliest genetic diseases that DNA tests can diagnose are sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Tay-Sachs, Huntington’s, and some cancers.
DNA evidence has also become ubiquitous in some criminal cases. Today, DNA tests that confirm criminality or exonerate an innocent person are considered part of the criminalist’s forensic toolkit. That said, it’s not a guarantee, either way. Instead, DNA tests in criminal cases are important elements in the larger context of the evidence collected.
A DNA sample is obtained in each type of scenario – an individual seeking knowledge about themselves for medical purposes and the justice system seeking evidence – by consent. In other words, there is a legal requirement for one person to secure the DNA of another person.
(Credit: Adobe Stock)
Who Controls DNA Samples?
At this point, at least two questions arise: 1) Does the individual still control, or own, the DNA they provided once it’s in a database? That is, can the sample be used for something unrelated to the circumstances under which the sample was provided? And 2) Can someone be compelled to give their DNA in the first place, after which the sample is controlled by whoever owns the repository? The short answer to both questions is: It depends.
Suppose you want to have a DNA test performed to see if you have the hereditary markers for a specific disease. You sign an informed consent contract that details what happens to your DNA sample after the lab does its work. In some cases, for example, health insurers in the United States, which pay for the test, are legally prevented from using the sample or results to make decisions – especially decisions impacting the individual’s coverage.
Citizens insured by governmental agencies, such as the Veterans Health Administration, do not have the protection of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, passed in 2008, which applies to private health insurers and employers.
Suppose you want to research your ancestry beyond what’s in public records. Suppose, in other words, that you want to know, genetically, where you originate. With the proliferation of genetic testing companies, it’s now easy to find the answers. So, you get the test kit in the mail, send back a sample, and wait for the results. Genealogy companies have a lot of leeway when it comes to using that sample. The legal restrictions that apply to private insurance companies, for example, don’t also apply to these testing companies.
One genealogy testing company’s Privacy Statement includes language about DNA ownership: “You always maintain ownership of your DNA and DNA Data—you can manage and delete it as described in this Privacy Statement.” That sounds reassuring, but, in fact, you don’t have any way of confirming that the company you chose won’t share your DNA or related data with a third party. You just take their word for it. And what about theft? It’s also possible someone might hack into a company’s huge database to steal the data.
(Credit: Adobe Stock)
Of course, these last concerns don’t address the moral and legal question of ownership. Instead, they point to some of the potential issues we should consider before parting with pieces of ourselves.
Ah, but wait! Surely we don’t think of a piece of ourselves as fundamentally me, right? For example, if we get a manicure or a haircut, we don’t rush to collect the trimmings. When we eat at a restaurant, we don’t wipe off every utensil or glass that has our saliva on it. And we don’t wipe down the door knobs and other things we’ve touched when we are out and about.
Suppose a detective scoops up a can of soda discarded by a criminal suspect. In the United States, the DNA taken from that can is fair game for evidence. In other words, the suspect can’t legally claim to own the discarded DNA. One can also be compelled, under certain circumstances, to provide DNA in a criminal investigation. Sometimes DNA collected for genealogical purposes can be linked to criminal investigations, as in the case of the Golden State Killer.
Who Owns Your DNA?
Most countries have national DNA databases. Only one – Kuwait – requires both its citizens and visitors to provide their DNA for the national registry. In other countries, DNA is collected primarily to aid in criminal and missing persons cases. Profiles are shared internationally for the same reasons. In this context – in other words, once the DNA has been legally obtained – the source of the sample no longer owns their DNA. Even if someone is exonerated of a crime (or a missing person is located), the sample and related data are not necessarily discarded.
In his 2005 science fiction novel Never Let Me Go, Kazuo Ishiguro tells the story of a group of friends who, after having grown up together, learn they are clones whose purpose is to be organ “donors” for their DNA matches.
In many cases, parents are considered the legal owners of their children’s DNA. Parental consent is typically required for a third party to obtain a minor’s genetic material. Some also argue that families own DNA, since relatives share much of their DNA with each other. (Think about paternity tests, for example.) Still, there seems to be something missing here, something about what it means to own or control – in this case, DNA. It seems to come down to authority, that is, who has authority over you.
In 2013, the United States Supreme Court ruled that DNA cannot be patented. That means that no one owns another person’s DNA. You could imagine a scenario in which some entity was granted a DNA patent and then harvested the DNA they wanted from its source. That might sound like the stuff of science fiction, but as scientific knowledge expands and deepens, and as medical techniques become increasingly sophisticated and efficient, fiction and reality may merge into one. For this reason alone, bioethicists, legal scholars, and others continue to wrestle with the knotty question of who owns your DNA.
Ω
Mia Wood is a philosophy professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, California. She is also a MagellanTV staff writer interested in the intersection of philosophy and everything else. Among her relevant publications are essays in Mr. Robot and Philosophy: Beyond Good and Evil Corp (Open Court, 2017), Westworld and Philosophy: Mind Equals Blown (Open Court, 2018), Dave Chappelle and Philosophy: When Keeping it Wrong Gets Real (Open Court, 2021), and Indiana Jones and Philosophy: Why Did It Have to be Socrates? (Wiley-Blackwell, 2023).
Title image credit: Adobe Stock
