Hunting for DNA
The growing public interest in genetics has increased the likelihood that genetic paparazzi with DNA collection tools will soon become as ubiquitous as paparazzi with cameras.
Although these concerns may seem relatively new, the famous pop star Madonna has been sounding the alarm for more than a decade about the possibility of secret DNA collection and testing without her consent. She has hired a cleaning crew to sterilize her dressing rooms after concerts, and requires new toilet seats at every stop of her tours.
At first, Madonna was ridiculed for DNA paranoia, but as more advanced, faster and cheaper genetic technologies reach the consumer sphere, concerns about the possibility of uncoordinated, secret collection and testing of DNA seem not only reasonable, but also justified.
For the most part, the courts managed to evade the difficulties of secretly collecting and testing the DNA of public figures, but this will not last long. One day they will face the insufficiency of the existing legal restrictions regarding genetic theft.
A storehouse of genetic information
Strands of hair, nails, skin scales and saliva are all traces of DNA that a person unknowingly leaves behind.
Genetic analysis can reveal not only personal information, such as health status or risk of developing certain diseases, but also the main aspects of a person's personality, including his origin and potential traits of future children. In addition, with the development of genetic technologies, fears about the use of secretly collected genetic material for reproductive purposes using in vitro gametogenesis are becoming something more than just paranoia.
Gametogenesis in vitro (IVG) is in the development stage, it can allow future parents to create eggs or sperm cells from any body tissues, for example, skin.
Existing legal framework
When disputes related to the theft of genes from public figures inevitably get into the courtroom, judges will need to answer serious questions about how genetics is related to personality and identity, property, health and disease, intellectual property and reproductive rights. Such issues have already been raised in cases involving the use of genetics in law enforcement agencies, the patentability of DNA and the possession of discarded genetic material.
In each of these cases, the courts focused on only one aspect of genetics, such as privacy rights or the value of genetic information for biomedical research. But this limited approach ignores other aspects, such as the privacy of family members with shared genetics or property and personal interests that someone may see in genetic material discarded after a medical procedure.
In the case of genetic paparazzi, the courts will apparently try to fit complex questions about genetics into the framework of privacy rights, because this is how they have approached other intrusions into the lives of public figures in the past.
What awaits us in the future
With the existing laws and the current state of genetic technology, most people do not need to worry about the secret collection and use of genetic material, as public figures do. But cases of genetic paparazzi are likely to play an important role in determining what rights everyone else will or will not have.
None of the States has properly handled the complexities of genetic legal claims. Even in States with laws specifically designed to protect genetic privacy, the rules cover only a narrow range of genetic interests. Some laws, for example, may prohibit the disclosure of genetic information, but not the collection.
For better or for worse, the way the courts rule on genetic paparazzi cases will determine how society thinks about genetic privacy and about individual rights in relation to genetics in a broader sense.
Aminat Adzhieva, portal "Eternal Youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru based on The Conversation: Genetic paparazzi are right around the corner, and courts aren't ready to confront the legal quagmire of DNA theft.