Norwegian DNA Now At Wholesale Prices
A San Francisco firm thinks it's time people started copyrighting their DNA
[...]
Much of the publicity for Crump's new business, launched earlier that month, is done at this very spot in the cafe. As if in the comfort of his own home, Crump leans back on the couch cushions as he philosophizes about his latest enterprise, the DNA Copyright Institute -- supposedly the world's first and only personal DNA copyrighting service.As Crump explains it, the purpose of the institute is to protect people -- especially celebrities -- from being genetically cloned by mad scientists or rabid fans, a well-worn pitch that he has offered to media organizations worldwide.
I noticed that one brown-bag panel discussion at the end of the month covers that of organ sales and I was reminded of the above DNA story (one that is nearly 4 years old).
Both Adam Young and Stephanie Murphy (1 2) have interesting articles that tackle this particular issue of who ultimately owns a persons organs -- prompting such questions as 'can I sell one of my kindeys?' or 'can I clone one of my kidneys and sell it?'
Regardless as to how you answer those particular questions, the follow-up question is: do I ultimately own my body and if I do, can I do with it like other property, including sell, trade or modify it?
In the same vein, can a hair follicle, piece of skin or used band-aid containing DNA be homesteaded? I would argue, yes if done so on private property. And following the homesteadization (sic) can the new owner utilize cloning, blending or any other technique to transform their new property into whatever they want?
On its website, the DNA Copyright Institute conflates several issues including theft and ownership:
* Imagine the biggest Tom Cruise fans around the world, fighting over the chance to procure his drinking glass for the possible DNA samples, or attempting to shake his hand so they can casually scratch a bit of epidermis in a DNA collection sortie.Quite simply, all of these issues can be dealt with in terms of private property. If someone physically steals something from me such as an ear, eye or piece of hair, then they have trespassed and should be dealt with accordingly. While the libertarian retribution topic is quite contentious, in the above Tom Cruise example, he was physically attacked.
* Imagine the sale and resale of not only this DNA, but embryos and other mish-mash made from this DNA in both legal and illegal labs.
* Imagine 18 Claudia Schiffers and 7 Vanessa Williams competing in the regional baby beauty pageant.
* Imagine that physically-gifted children begin appearing as couples decide that the latest super-athlete would make a better progeny than their own.
* Imagine you suspect that someone has utilized your or your client's DNA in an authorized fashion, but have not begun the process that allows you to prove and claim it.
I see nothing wrong, nothing un-libertarian about cloning so as long as the expropriation of the needed items were not done through coercion. Maybe Vanessa Williams decides that she can make a business out of selling modified versions of her DNA. It is her DNA, she owns it. Likewise so does Claudia Schiffer, Bo Jackson, Michael Jordan and heaven-forbid, Prince and Lyle Lovett.
The one common principle surrounding organs, DNA or any part of the body for that matter is ownership. Furthermore, I do not see this as a separate special-case for promulgating and justifying Copyright enforcement (Argumentation ethics anyone?).
Also, the case regarding "super-athletes" or "super-genuises" breeding to create "super-babies" is about the freedom to associate with whomever we want. Should there be a law preventing Olympic athletes from procreating with other athletes? Egg and sperm donors are already filtered for diseases today, why should this be any different?
Side notes:
- Even if this Copyright scheme is granted, could 'prior art' not be invoked by exhuming all corpses?
- I think #2 is poignant
Comments (21)
Gene
In a truly libertarian society, there is no guarantee that taking a skin cell from you will constitute an illegal act. In fact, there is no guarantee that putting your eye out will constitute an illegal act. What would and would not be legal would be determined a private judicial agency... and it's "laws" would be determined by consumer demand. Trying to apply some kind of "universal libertarian principle" leads to absurdities where killing 1 cell via a flashlight is not un-libertarian, but killing 100 trillian via a laser gun is. Why?
Published: March 15, 2005 9:26 PM
Rolf
Gene
you wrote:
and it's "laws" would be determined by consumer demand.
Do you remember the riots in south L.A. during the Roger King situation in California. That was also consumer demand.
The last presidentual election in America was cunsumer demand.
My question is are they qualified to set the standards?
Perhaps a truly libertarian society is itself an absurdity until several more thousand years pass and more than 5% of the human brain is used.
Published: March 16, 2005 1:28 AM
Juke Box
Gene "In a truly libertarian society, there is no guarantee that taking a skin cell from you will constitute an illegal act. In fact, there is no guarantee that putting your eye out will constitute an illegal act. What would and would not be legal would be determined a private judicial agency"
You are talking about some manner of plutocracy - rule of the wealthy. The libertarian idealised "minimalist" state would enforce laws protecting property rights. The anarcho-capitalist or market-anarchist would allow the selection of which protection services provider to employ.
Where are you getting this garbage from?
You wrote "Trying to apply some kind of "universal libertarian principle" leads to absurdities where killing 1 cell via a flashlight is not un-libertarian, but killing 100 trillian via a laser gun is. Why?"
Killing 1 cell via flashlight would also be illegal if it had an owner who had not consented to it and in some way suffered harm through it. Do you not consider it absurd to ask for a complete ethical justification for libertarianism in the comments section of a Blog? Perhaps you would do better to read Hoppe on argumentation ethics, no?
Published: March 16, 2005 5:11 AM
Pete Canning
Some vicious comments on this thread.
1. People leave skin cells, and other DNA containing items every where they go. I am no cloning expert, but I assume these things might be enough to clone people. Either way, it is quite hard to make the argument that cells left on the property of others are still your property and not abandoned.
2. I am no particular fan of the "market for law" concept, but there is no way voting or mob violence can be seen as equivalent to a market outcome.
Published: March 16, 2005 8:40 AM
tz
Except the anarcho-capitalist protection services might end up with the legality Gene proposes.
If protection services are paid for, we would have a plutocracy as those who could afford more law and justice could purchase more.
People would also purchase (collectively) a soak-the-rich ethic - they do so now at every election.
Published: March 16, 2005 9:00 AM
tz
Does your ownership of your body extend to parts detached without your consent or maybe even knowledge?
If a windstorm blows some patio furniture off my property, I have not abandoned it nor have revoked my rights to it. It still belongs to me, and it will be difficult to conceive of every situation where something might leave my property or person.
I will leave my body cells with my DNA around inadvertently, should I lose the ownership of those?
Published: March 16, 2005 9:11 AM
tz
In the case of the athletes, they often get minor cuts and abrasions so their DNA would often be available.
The difficulty might be this - lets say a drug that might be very beneficial and profitable requires such DNA. If they had to go to one or more athletes and ask, they would have to pay. Instead they can simply wait until they find some of their unintentionally discarded body - then develop and PATENT the drug, so the owner of the DNA could not even recreate a generic version.
This actually happened - someone gave blood which was eventually used to create a drug which was patented, and he received nothing (he did sue).
Published: March 16, 2005 9:16 AM
tz
But there is an obvious yet subtle and complex question about cloning: does the clone have rights? Is it a "human being" and when?
The DNA of an unborn baby indicates it is a discrete human being, yet Rothbard argues we can impose the death penalty unilaterally and without any due process if the mother is inconvienienced. But what if she has promised the corporation to bring the baby to term? Do they now own her body? Can we bring back slavery?
(l4l.org has a longer refutation, but my short form) If you are on my airplane and at 50,000 feet, and we have an argument, I can push you out if I suddenly find you inconvienient - forcing me to wait until we land would be soooo tyrannical, so what if you don't have a parachute, only ownership matters, and life is one of those things for theologians to discuss over beverages.
Cloning involves issues of life which are quite serious. Ignoring those in terms of a property rights regime (but can the dead "own" things?) may make things apparently simple, but the issues have not gone away.
Published: March 16, 2005 9:27 AM
Francisco Torres
I think it is a good idea to copyright my DNA, so I can charge you guys for using my incredibly great and healthy DNA to create a better you.
;) ;)
Published: March 16, 2005 11:15 AM
Rolf
tz
(but can the dead "own" things?)
No, the dead cannot own "Things" though the blood lines from the grave bind as invisible steel cords
which are unbreakable and any who steal from the dead through the living put their existance in peril.
Published: March 16, 2005 1:19 PM
Juke Box
"othbard argues we can impose the death penalty unilaterally and without any due process if the mother is inconvienienced."
Source?
"But what if she has promised the corporation to bring the baby to term? Do they now own her body? Can we bring back slavery?"
See Rothbard, Man Economy and State, he deals with this explicitly under the idea of inalienability. No and No. That you do not know this is why I am asking for a source for the claim re: "death penalty".
"If you are on my airplane and at 50,000 feet, and we have an argument, I can push you out if I suddenly find you inconvienient "
While you own the airplane, I own my body. Since I have been "invited" on the airplane, no trespass has occurred, and expulsion is not warranted. Perhaps in the case of a "stowaway" such expulsion would be warranted, something that would have to be thought about.
As for things that erode being still yours - I doubt it. Dust blows off my property and ends up all over the place (Hey, you can't touch that doorknob - that's covered in MY dust!), I expect the same should apply to human DNA. Yes that may mean using someone's genes without their consent. I don't see that as a problem.
Published: March 16, 2005 2:54 PM
Tim Swanson
tz,
One reply that I would like to make is to your statement:
"But there is an obvious yet subtle and complex question about cloning: does the clone have rights? Is it a "human being" and when?"
I am a 50% clone of my parents, as are you. Identical twins are natural clones of one another. Furthermore, the current bugaboo surrounding "human cloning" is reminescent of using in vitro fertilization -- and yet those born through this unconventional method are humans in every capacity as you or I.
In all the above cases, no one argues that none of us has "natural rights." So, why would an "artificial" clone be any different?
Published: March 16, 2005 4:10 PM
tz
Does the clone achieve their rights at their creation (the equivalent of conception) or at some arbitrary time later?
I've already noted the problem (since we don't have artificial wombs) of women who would have to carry the clones to term. Do they have the right to abort if they change their mind - of if they want to keep the baby? Also what happens if the clone is "defective" as is often the case (adult DNA can have damage)?
You are not 50% the clone of each parent (and wouldn't a Y chromosome make it an uneven split?). That would be like taking the first half of one book and gluing it to the second half of another. The information which specified that portion of your self was a unique mix. And it occurs through a natural act (in-vitro preserves the action if not the geography, though I think I could make a natural law case against it but it would require a lot of thought and words so isn't conducive to a blog comment).
Therapeutic cloning specifically intends to kill the clone to take whatever cells, organs, or whatever else they need. If they do that the intent of the creation is not to create a new legal person.
But the teleology of sex (before contraception was accepted) was human life. The teleology of whatever process of cloning need not be - the "personhood" becomes an unwanted accident of the clone. Can we create nonperson clones by fidgeting with the DNA - or the laws? Would the clones be patentable and thus a slave in a sense?
Published: March 16, 2005 8:57 PM
tz
And there is another factor in people getting your DNA.
They will know a lot of medical information you might want to be kept secret. You might have a condition where you will die before a given age - and might have a long and expensive decline. You might have a disposition toward alcoholism or some other socially unacceptable condition. A hidden tryst with offspring that was settled under seal could become public by simply getting your DNA and doing comparisons.
Feel free to post your DoB, SSN, address and other identifying information in public - you probably give it out, and if I see it over your shoulder, ought I not be able to use it for whatever purpose since you couldn't prevent disclosing it and it ought to be in the public domain, just like DNA from discarded cells?
And if you leave some sperm about (according to current law, in this case a man who had non-vaginal intercourse, but the woman saved some and impregnated herself), you can be sued and be made to pay child support for "your" offspring - the DNA tests won't lie. There is a suit against the woman for fraud or theft or something that is still in process.
Also if your DNA is copyrighted and/or patented in a process, do you become illegal since you now infringe simply by having the information in your cells?
Published: March 16, 2005 9:05 PM
Gene
Rolf;
"The last presidentual election in America was cunsumer demand."
You don't understand the difference between voting and consumer choice. If 90% of the population likes Nissans, it does not mean that only Nissans will be sold on the market - because there will be companies that look to capitalize on the niche. How else do you explain "BELLY FETISH EXTREME"? I certainly don't have a belly-fetish. I bet you don't. Most of us don't. Yet belly-fetish DVDs are on the market.
That being said: when law is sold as a private good it is possible to have a variety of law markets, tailored to the patron's needs. Of course, it's not all that simple - given that these agencies would have to interact with each other.... but that's a whole 'nother essay.
Published: March 18, 2005 11:09 PM
Rolf
The last presidentual election in America was con sumer demand. Of course it was. It was sold and bought through the media system in America and the Americans bought it Hook, Line and Sinker:)
As for your mercenary police and armies, they have been around for centuries, nothing new.
Security is big business just as it was in the Roman times. And when a society can criminalize all human activity the security industry gets rich
feeding off the rest.
Published: March 23, 2005 9:09 AM
Michael A. Clem
Nonsense, Rolf. When you vote with your money, you have a pretty darn good idea how much you have to spend and what you can afford to buy. When you cast a political vote, on the other hand, the costs of that vote and policies implemented by that vote are not nearly as obvious. How much health care can the government "afford" to provide, for example? I have no idea, and nobody else does, either. So a vote for national health care cannot be an example of consumer demand, but merely of political demand.
To say that the election was "bought and sold" simply indicates the degree of corruption in the system, not some kind of consumer market. And when human activity is criminalized, it is the government and its agents that get rich, not private security, which must rely on its clients for income.
Published: March 23, 2005 10:21 AM
Rolf
Nonsense Michael A. Clem
The Con Sumer demand industry has been around for a long time selling their bill of goods.
Of couse it was bought and sold as it has been for several decades.
Are you Michael A. Clem in Denial?
If those feeding off corruption are not also corrupt by doing such then what are they and how can corruption be stopped as long there are those willing to partisipate In Vulture Game?
Published: March 23, 2005 10:44 AM
Rolf
Michael A. Clem
A wonderful poem by Philip levine was published
in 1990 which is completly clear. Enjoy:)
They Feed They Lion
Out of burlap sacks, out of bearing butter,
Out of black bean and wet slate bread,
Out of the acids of rage, the candor of tar,
Out of creosote, gasoline, drive shafts, wooden dollies,
They Lion grow.
Out of the gray hills
Of industrial barns, out of rain, out of bus ride,
West Virgina to Kiss My Ass, out of buried aunties,
Mothers hardening like pounded stumps, out of stumps,
They Lion grow.
Earth is eating trees, fence posts,
Gutted cars, earth is calling in her little ones,
"Come home, Come home!" From pig balls,
From the ferosity of pig driven to holiness,
From the furred ear and the full jowl come
The repose of the hung belly, from the purpose
They Lion grow.
From the sweet glues of the trotters
Come the sweet kinks of the fist, from the full flower
Of the hams the thorax of caves,
From "Bow Down" come "Rise Up,"
Come they Lion from the reeds of shovels,
The grained arm that pulls the hands,
They Lion grow.
From all my white sins forgiven, they feed,
From my car passing under the stars,
They Lion, from my children inherit,
From the oak turned to a wall they Lion,
'From they sack and they belly opened
And all that was hidden burning on the oil-stained earth
They feed they lion and he comes.
By Philip Levine from Contemporary American Poetry
Published: March 23, 2005 11:03 AM
Michael A. Clem
Haven't you heard? Consumer demand for poetry is low. If they called a vote on it, poetry would probably disappear altogether, since a majority wouldn't favor it. However, since poetry is not part of the political process, but is in a consumer market instead, poetry can continue as a niche market supported by the minority that likes it.
Published: March 23, 2005 11:13 AM
Rolf
Yes Michael :) I learned that years ago in the 60s. And it is a consumer demand which is low over the whole world.
Yes thank goodness it will never be part of the political process though Virgil in his time found some political expedience in it.:)
Published: March 23, 2005 12:17 PM