Who Owns the Information in Your Genome?
By LARRY MORAN - SANDWALK
Added: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:44:27 UTC
More and more people are having their genome sequenced or having it scanned for the presence of various traits. Should the information that comes out of those studies be made public without your permission?
The answer is, no. I think we can all agree on that. Nobody should have access to your personal genetic information without your permission.
Is your permission sufficient or do other people have a say in whether your genome information makes it into the public realm? Let's say you want to publish your own genomic sequence, do you have the right to do this on your own without seeking approval from anyone else?
Razib Khan of Gene Expression is passionately interested in this question. A few weeks ago he published an article about the sequencing of the genome of an Australian aboriginal using cells from a hair follicle deposited in a museum in the 19th century. Scientists sought permission from a local tribal council before publishing the genome sequence [All your genes belong to the tribal council!].
Clearly this is a case where scientists felt that ethnically-related individuals should have have a say in whether the genome of a long-dead member of the tribe was published.
Razib focuses the issue by asking whether an identical twin has the right to publish their genome over the objections of the other twin. Do you have the right to publish your genome sequence over the objections of your non-identical siblings and your parents? Razib says yes.
For that matter, people who put their genotypes in the public domain are partially exposing their whole families. Do they have to go ask for permission? Obviously I don’t think so. I didn’t ask my siblings or my parents.
This is one of those cases where "rights" and the "law" might conflict with social responsibility. I think Razib is dead wrong. I think he had to ask his sibling and his parents for permission and, if they refused, he should not have published his genome sequence. That's the ethical way to behave.
A few days later, Rasmus Nielsen posted a response to Razib Khan on his (Nielson's) blog: Evolutionary Genomics Blog. Nielson defended the decision to get permission from the tribal council and he also criticized Razib for not consulting his siblings before publicizing his genome information. Here's what Rasmus Nielson said .... [Do the genes belong to the tribal council?]
Read more
Tweet
RELATED CONTENT
Moral Clarity and Richard Dawkins
Carson - Reasons for God 91 Comments
What kind of meta-ethical foundation has Dawkins provided for his ‘moral home’?
The Moral Necessity of a Godless...
Tauriq Moosa - big think 74 Comments
The Moral Necessity of a Godless Existence
UPDATED: Why I want all our children to...
Richard Dawkins - The Observer 174 Comments
Whatever else the Bible might be – and it really is a great work of literature – it is not a moral book and young people need to learn that important fact because they are very frequently told the opposite.
Who matters (or should) when scientists...
Janet D. Stemwedel - Scientific... 7 Comments
Who matters (or should) when scientists engage in ethical decision-making?
Bioethicist Richard Dawkins: Morality,...
Sean DeButts - BellevuePatch 36 Comments
Bioethicist Richard Dawkins: Morality, Society Can Be "Intelligently Designed"
MORE BY LARRY MORAN
Martin Rees Explains Accommodationism
Larry Moran - Sandwalk 96 Comments
Larry Moran - Sandwalk 75 Comments




















Comments
Comment RSS Feed
Please sign in or register to comment
View Comments Page