Is your own DNA your property?

[CrazyScientist]

In a way, this is another thread on human cloning, and I realize there have been a few on this topic already. But I wanted to approach it from a slightly different perspective.

I'm fully support cloning for medical research, but I've always been a bit on the fence as concerns the full cloning of human beings. On the one hand, I'm loathe to put any block on scientific progess, but on the other, the benefits seem limited, and the ethics are dubious. I believe it could only be ethical to create a clone if the possibility existed that his/her life would be as good a quality as any person produced the old-fashioned way.
But then a new thought occcured to me. Isn't my DNA mine? If so, and I choose to have it reproduced, does the government have a right to prevent me, no matter how I choose to go about it? Hell, if companies can patent genes, surely I can assume ownership of my own genome.

If a person wanted to have a child naturally and the law tried to prevent them, I don't think I'd be wrong in assuming people would go nuts. I think most consider reproduction to be a basic human right. Doesn't this extend to cloning, which is just another form of reproduction?

Basically I want to generate some discussion of the question: Does a person's unique DNA sequence belong to them? Is it their property? And is this relevant to the cloning debate?

 

[Mikoyan]

My DNA is my personal ID string, so yes, I own it to 100%.

 

[ainwood]

The guy who ran the private enterprise project to map the genome is now trying to offer a service where you can get your own personal genome mapped for a small fee (USD1000 IIRC). Some are saying that this will then make it legally very difficult for companies to start patenting genes that have been published in the manner. Don't know the details, but I hope they are right.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by DamnCommie
But then a new thought occcured to me. Isn't my DNA mine? If so, and I choose to have it reproduced, does the government have a right to prevent me, no matter how I choose to go about it?

(snip)

Basically I want to generate some discussion of the question: Does a person's unique DNA sequence belong to them? Is it their property? And is this relevant to the cloning debate?

Personally, I don't think it's relevant to the debate. Does my money belong to me? Should I therefore be able to reproduce it any way I see fit?

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Dralix


Personally, I don't think it's relevant to the debate. Does my money belong to me? Should I therefore be able to reproduce it any way I see fit?

Interesting. So you equate reproduction by cloning with counterfeiting money? This does not seem an apt analogy to me.

What about the numerous organisms that reproduce exclusively by cloning? Are they somehow couterfeits? I think not.

And what about people with untreatable forms of infertility? If cloning is illegal then isn't that making it illegal for those people to reproduce themselves? How is that different from the Chinese government limiting the number of children people have? (do they still do that or is that the past?)

 

[Richard III]

This is why I think an intelligent approach to information property that treats it AS property will solve a lot of problems with information property.

If people owned their DNA, and the government regulated its distribution just as it would zone land, a lot of the debates about the use of that DNA would be resolved.

R.III

 

[Dralix]

Actually, I suggest that you are the one who "equated" cloning with counterfeiting (although I think equate is too strong a word).

You suggested that because something is yours, you should be free to copy it. I suggest that ownership has nothing to do with the debate. I wont comment on the rest of your questions, because they are not relevant to my point, which is that, in my opinion, your DNA being "yours" has nothing to do with the debate of whether or not cloning should be allowed.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Dralix
Actually, I suggest that you are the one who "equated" cloning with counterfeiting (although I think equate is too strong a word).

You suggested that because something is yours, you should be free to copy it. I suggest that ownership has nothing to do with the debate. I wont comment on the rest of your questions, because they are not relevant to my point, which is that, in my opinion, your DNA being "yours" has nothing to do with the debate of whether or not cloning should be allowed.

Ah. I misunderstood you. I apologize.

Still though, I disagree that it is irrelevant to the debate. One of the inherent properties of DNA is that it can self-replicate. That is, in essence, its function. Do you agree?
To me it's almost as if there were laws allowing the ownership of automobiles, but forbidding that they be driven.

 

[Grey Fox]

Our DNA is given to us by our parents. Each individual's DNA is his own.

If I get a child, he/she is given some of mine DNA. It's a mix of mine and my partners DNA. My gift to my child. The child then owns that unique mixture of DNA. If I would clone myself and my partner instead because my partner or I can't "produce" children, then the child would still be a new individual, and own his own DNA.

So yes, everyone owns there own DNA, but do we own the right to clone ourselves?

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by DamnCommie


Ah. I misunderstood you. I apologize.

Still though, I disagree that it is irrelevant to the debate. One of the inherent properties of DNA is that it can self-replicate. That is, in essence, its function. Do you agree?
To me it's almost as if there were laws allowing the ownership of automobiles, but forbidding that they be driven.

No need to apologize

Whether the function of DNA is to reproduce or not, in my opinion, is completely different than cloning a human being. A human being's function is not to clone oneself.

We don't have laws that forbid driving automobiles, but we do have laws that regulate how we drive them.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Originally posted by Dralix


Whether the function of DNA is to reproduce or not, in my opinion, is completely different than cloning a human being. A human being's function is not to clone oneself.

It could be argued that the function of human beings (whose recipe is DNA) is to reproduce themselves. (Although I don't know if I'd subscribe to that argument). Either way, one function of humans is to reproduce, why set limits on what methods of reproduction we choose to employ?

Originally posted by Dralix

We don't have laws that forbid driving automobiles, but we do have laws that regulate how we drive them.

Hmm, yes we do. But those laws are in place because automobiles can cause death or serious injury to the driver and others when operated improperly. The law provides a clear and measurable benefit to society. How does limiting the uses to which we put our DNA provide such a benefit?

 

[Akka]

"Property" is a false problem here. I would say that NOBODY has the property of DNA, as nobody has property of life.

Your child is perhaps coming from you, but it's not your "property".

 

[Perfection]

I believe that you should be able to do whatever you want with your DNA, provided these rules

If you use the DNA to create a clone for therapuetic cloning, It may not have anything but the most rudimentry nervous system.

If you use the DNA to create a Child than it must have full rights as any citizen and you may not alter the DNA beforehand if it hinders its functionality

There may be more but none that I can think of

 

[Narz]

If you don't own your own DNA, what do you own?

 

[ozscott75]

Originally posted by Narz
If you don't own your own DNA, what do you own?

Your soul?

 

[allan2]

You own your body, therefore you own the material in your body's cells, therefore you own that DNA which is in your body.

However, if you clone a replica of yourself, even if that clone bears the exact same DNA as your own body does, that clone would not be your property, but his own. An individual isn't defined by DNA alone.

As for whether or not cloning humans should be allowed, while I have some natural fear of the unknown like anyone else, I see no compelling principle forbidding it. However, the main questions that invoke fears in people don't seem to be in the cloning itself, but rather what BECOMES of the clones. I.e. if they are used like property of another (say, the one who is cloned), THAT is where the fears of evil would be manifest.

 

[omichyron]

You own your DNA. You certainly ought to be able to copy it, but all normal laws should apply to a clone. I don't know who would want a clone anyway, though....

 

[penvzila]

You ARE your DNA. Duh.

 

[Pongui]

Every living thing contains essentially the same DNA. Between people, the mix varies slightly, but never enough to dictate who we turn out to be as individuals. I'm very nearly a genetic clone of any person anywhere on Earth, so I can't see actual cloning changing anything.

Do I own my DNA? I own my body. I don't own my eye colour or blood type or any images made of me by others. I may own the garden in my backyard but I don't own the DNA of those plants nor any seeds that blow off into another yard. If people want to copy the arrangement of my plantings, I can't stop them, and wouldn't try. We all shop the same seed-rack anyway. What matters is how we grow.

 

[ejday]

DNA! Cloning! What a faskinatin thread!
I think I'd echo sentiments that fall between a few others already expressed:
DNA is information, but it's personal information. In the next few years, as we decode more and more of the helix, we'll start to understand just how much of our existence is nature vs. nurture. What is "hard-coded," if you will, and what is imparted through environment and experience? This information becomes personal in ways that credit card numbers and doctor's records (or arrest records, for that matter) just don't match.

So, to sum up the blather: Yes, DNA is your property -- but that doesn't necessarily give you license to cook up another "you." I agree reproductive rights may be at stake and that may be pivotal in regulating a future cloning industry.
***
A bit more blather: Until you find a way to record and imprint collective memory from source to target, as well as accelerating a clone to immediate adulthood, the clone will be a blank slate human-merely a normal child with your exact genes instead of a child with the 50-50 mix as we have known it so far.

There are plenty of areas where the technology could be abused, from the dreaded "organ harvesting" to a Nazi-nightmare level of military eugenics (talk about redifining "An Army of One," eh?). Does that make a persuasive argument against researching the technology? I don't think so.

What about folk that go through with it... then get second thoughts? Too late, there's a biological copy already there. These folk would wind up beside themselves... Very personal, sure, but Dept of Health and Human Services (in the US, at least) has to step in and take custody before this human can be harmed.
...
Are you your DNA? Well, that's certainly where somebody starts, but there are several factors that alter the progression:
1) Environmental exposure. Everything from industrial chemicals to radiation.
2) Experiential factors: There have already been situations proven where adaption to environment has activated one gene set over another.
...
Okay. Blather over.