He’d been seeing a therapist over his obsession and the ultimate result is that California and other states now hold that there is a duty to warn potential victims. 2nd, ownership refers to control, what one has the legal and rightful title to. In the case of genetic information, the number of people who might be given access to it is indefinite, isn’t it? So the couple, if one of them finds that they’re a carrier for this particular disorder, then they can decide perhaps to test the foetus, if they become pregnant with it. *The full name is: Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from Their Utilization. It will, however, be on, as usual, on Monday at 13.30 and it will as always be available as a podcast. While plants and animals are the most obvious sources of biodiversity, microorganisms are an integral part of ecosystems and actually make up a largely untapped genetic resource. What are we to make of all of this? But simply because some action is voluntary does not imply whatsoever that it is beyond reproach. I put the word in quotation marks because it’s a little weird to think of ownership of a person in that manner, but it is still ownership. Note: owing to RN's live broadcast from the Sydney Writers' Festival, the Philosopher's Zone will not go to air this Sunday. Alan Saunders: So, what we’re talking here is the tension between maintaining confidence in the medical profession and a third party’s right to know about threats or risks to him. They cannot be bankrupted through erroneous decisions. Why would my parents own my genome? In addition the reclassification of the genus Lactobacillus is discussed, including the impact this has on commercial use and regulatory aspects of these strains. This is a venture of that enterprising thinking events company Heart of Philosophy, details of them on our website, abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone. Alan Saunders: Ultimately then Justin, who does own my genes and does it really matter? This is the attitude that some genetic counsellors take as well, because their thought is not only about the current patient but also about ensuring that future patients are going to feel, you know, comfortable and confident at actually, if you like, presenting for treatment in a timely fashion. I think we’re getting used to the idea as a community that confidentiality isn’t absolute. Justin Oakley: Well, I think here it’s important that we are clear about what sort of level of genetic information we are talking about so that when it comes to disease predispositions, especially in cases where it seems that one’s family might share the gene, then I think we ought to get used to the idea that confidentiality is not necessarily absolute and that others have perhaps justifiable claims on that information. So Cyprus, way back in 1982, they introduced this program whereby couples have to obtain a genetic test in order to get a marriage licence. Register now for our next online experts meeting on “Discovery of Novel Microbial Strains and the Impact of the Nagoya protocol“ on November 24th, 2020. It establishes a “sovereign right” to genetic resources, that is, each country has a right to fully utilize the resources found in their country. Justin Oakley: Well, one sort of test that parents often obtain these days, especially older parents, is to test whether or not the foetus that the woman is carrying has, I think, any of a number of genetic disorders, and the, I guess, most common disorders tested for are Down syndrome and spina bifida, and this test is available in fact at a number of hospitals throughout Australia. Well, they did break an extant law. This seems a bit unwarranted. But when they do (thalidomide, anyone?) Justin Oakley: Yes, so in some ways talk of joint bank account really only captures the sort of microcosm of the idea, and in a way with certain kinds of genetic information perhaps we ought to become familiar with or get used to the idea that other people, not just of course one’s parents or perhaps one’s siblings, have a justifiable claim on that. When a parent can make, and overrule, decisions by a child, they own that child. Indeed, I’d be surprised if the words own, ownership, and property were ever used in a Common Law decision on parental rights and responsibilities, even centuries ago. You might think that, if anybody owns your genes, it’s you, but if you know anything about your genes it will be because of professional gene testing. Let us, however, abstract from this finding. Justin Oakley: Well, I think those cases, and they’re certainly the best known ones in the literature on this, those cases are a little different in that it might be argued that the third parties there, at least it was argued in both those cases that the third parties didn’t necessarily have an absolute right to know, say in the HIV case, that as long as the patient was willing to take precautions about not passing it on and in the case of the dangerous patient as long as the patient could be perhaps discouraged from carrying out the threat, then at least the therapists themselves didn’t have an absolute obligation to breach. Justin Oakley, thank you very much for being with us. “Owner…This, presumably, would be the parents.”. Not according to the local Shenzhen court. Is genetic information personal information, which belongs to the patient being tested, or does it belong to all the patient’s genetic relations? It is true that in a free enterprise system, voluntary transactions deserve a presumption of acceptance. It’s only a violation of your consent for your parents to alter your genome in the same sense that it’s a violation of your consent to choose to have you in the first place without your consent, under circumstances you can’t consent to. This, presumably, would be the parents. Secondly, terms for accessing and using the genetic resources must be agreed upon. Overall, you make a pretty good case, but there is one massive error: This leads to another question: is it a proper law that prohibits voluntary trades of this or any sort? In the last 175 years or so, things have changed somewhat, so property isnt probably the best term anymore. Cresswell ID, Murphy H (2016). The answer emanating from the free enterprise philosophy is a clear “No.”. What of the doctors involved? Uncertainty regarding a strain’s collection date could hamper their use. It could be any number of relatives, any number of people? Justin Oakley: Well, I think the evidence on that question is not conclusive, and it’s very much dependent on the type of condition in question. Its slightly more complicated than that, but no more so than different types of property are treated differently by the law. Access Microbiology;1(2). I mean, my height is as much a fact about me as my genetic inheritance, but my height’s unlikely of itself to be of harm to anybody, so that’s not an issue, is it? Recently, a seismic shift occurred in the probiotics world when the entire Lactobacillus genus underwent reclassification and renaming. I personally don’t agree with that argument, I think that, you know, a good way perhaps to conceptualise these problems is to think of it as a conflict between, let’s say, the kind of role obligations that a counsellor has as a professional to maintain confidentiality and then the broader moral obligations that anyone has as a person, perhaps to, you know, in cases where you can perhaps prevent great harm, at perhaps little cost, that that’s something that you ought to do as a person, so I think that it’s not good enough for counsellors to say, ‘Well, you know, with my counsellor’s hat on I cannot breach and warn’, that counsellors also need to be able to step outside that role obligation and say, ‘Well, look, as a person there is great harm about to occur, and in some of these cases I’m the only one that can actually prevent. As Derek Butler, Commercial Director at BaseClear, explains “The Nagoya Protocol affects the way-of-working for biotech companies doing biological mining of microbial strain collections.