How much control do you have over your genes? Emerging trends would seem to indicate that whatever control you currently possess is being steadily eroded.

Recall the case of John Moore who sued the The University of California because following a treatment for a rare cancer a university affiliated physician repeatedly induced Mr. Moore to travel to his office in order to withdraw blood and tissue samples with the intent to profit from the cell lines that were being grown. Eventually a cell line based on T-lymphocytes was established and subsequently patented all without Moore's knowledge.

The court judgement makes clear that Moore was not entitled to ownership of his DNA.

Now in Britain, the police are allowed to keep DNA samples from suspects who have been cleared of the crime for which they stood accused.

The law lords dismissed two test cases brought by people who wanted their DNA samples destroyed once it had become clear that they would not be facing criminal charges.

Lord Brown, one of the five law lords who ruled yesterday, said he could not see why anybody should object to their samples being kept by the police.

The only logical basis for such an objection was that it would make it easier for the police to detect them if they offended in the future. But that could hardly be a legitimate objection, he said.

What this high court ruling seems to ignore is that property owners don't need to justify their case for upholding lawful use of their property. Of course, if the property does not lawfully belong to the plaintiff then the case moves in a different direction.

The first appeal was brought by a boy from Sheffield who was 11 when he was arrested for attempted robbery in 2001. After his acquittal, he asked for his fingerprints and samples to be destroyed.

It's interesting that this first case involved a minor for in the normal case of events one would expect his criminal record and his charge to be sealed for they would reflect on his reputation, which is something he would have control over, but because the DNA doesn't belong to the young man, his case is dismissed.

Lord Rodger said too much weight had been attached to what was seen as a greater cultural resistance in Britain to the collection of data about individuals than existed in other European countries.

So, privacy issues and property rights can be rationalized away by appeal to the practices in other jurisdictions. Those who think that American legal tradition will be a bulwark against such reasoning shoud consider the growing appeal to comparativism in Supreme Court rulings.

The trajectory that DNA rights seems to be following is the same as that of plant genetic material which were classed as the common heritage of mankind and remarkably, the UN treaty conferring this status came into effect on June 29, 2004 to little notice.

I won't find it too surprising that soon you'll have no claims whatsoever to your genetic material, and that since every use of it will in some fashion or another be dependent on patentable intellectual property procedures, your DNA will simply be grist for the mill and the information that is extracted will be divorced from the DNA.

Visions of a brave new world? Perhaps.

Godless comments:

Along the same lines, check this out:

In a case that bioethicists say could have wide implications, the state Superior Court invalidated a verbal agreement between a woman and her sperm donor and ordered him to pay child support for twin boys born nearly 10 years ago.

A three-judge panel said the deal between Joel L. McKiernan and Ivonne V. Ferguson that he would not be obligated for any child support was "on its face" a valid contract, but it was unenforceable due to "legal, equitable and moral principles." Previous state appellate rulings had determined that parents may not bargain away a child's right to support...

The twins were born prematurely in August 1994. Ferguson filed for support nearly five years later.

McKiernan has been paying up to $1,520 a month in support since losing the Dauphin County case. Since the twins were born, he has married, had two children and moved to the Pittsburgh area.

Our cells, our lives? Somehow methinks NOW isn't going to stand up for this guy.