Human DNA is a chemical compound, deoxyribonucleic acid to be exact, and like any other chemical compound can be patented. This is subject to certain restrictions. To be patented the subject would have to be useful, non-obvious and and new. For instance, DNA that has unexpected features or contains medically useful function and resulted from the work of scientist could be patented.
This reality raises the question of whether it is moral to allow an individual or company to claim ownership rights to human genetic material. What ownership rights does an individual have to her own genetic material and should this unique material be protected by property laws?
With regard to patents, research institutes argue that they cannot be expected to invest larges sums of money in new medical technologies if they cannot expect to be allowed to claim some ownership of the fruits of their labor. This legal protection allows them a certain amount of time to hold monopoly over their market and recuperate their initial investment. Without this benefit it makes no sense to do the research and society suffers the loss of a potential new technology.
Critics argue that this treatment of DNA violates an individuals right to property and privacy and threatens to reduce a human to an invention. Currently law enforcement agencies are working to build massive databases of DNA samples of criminals. The concern is that as databases are established for groups such as felons and sex offenders public opinion may relax and arguments may be made to expand these databases to include large groups of people. This could then allow employers, insurance companies and governments to use genetic information for profiling. Ultimately this practice results in violation of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure.
