The genetic revolution is well underway, with genetic research and knowledge expanding at an exponential rate. Much of the new genetics research is focused on population groups, and proponents of “population genomics” argue that such studies are necessary since genetic “variation” among human populations holds the most promise for technological innovations that can improve human health and lead to increased understanding of the origin of human populations. Population genomic research thus targets specific groups to discover variation that could lead to knowledge about genetic disorders, possible cures, and the origin and migration patterns of distinctive peoples. Research on genetic differences among groups or populations, however, raises many pressing ethical and legal questions. For example, focus on biological differences of racial and ethnic groups has in the past lead to assumptions about superiority and inferiority between groups, and in practice resulted in stigmatization and discrimination. Consequently, attention on groups should raise legal and moral red flags and compel us to move cautiously in this area. Pragmatically, targeting population groups as the object of study requires the determination of the nature and scope of “population groups” for purposes of genetics research.

The legal status of the human body is hotly contested, yet the law of the body remains in a state of confusion and chaos. Sometimes the body is treated as an object of property, sometimes it is dealt with under the rubric of contract, and sometimes it is not conceived as property at all, but rather as the subject of privacy rights. Which body of law should become the law of the body? This question is even more pressing in the context of current biomedical research, which permits commodification and commercialization of the body by everyone except the person who provides the “raw materials.” The lack of property protection for tangible parts of the human body is in stark contrast to the extensive protection granted to intellectual property in the body in the form of patents upon human genes and cell lines. Moreover, even courts that reject ownership claims on the part of those who supply body parts appear willing to grant property rights to scientists, universities, and others who use those body parts to conduct research and create products.

During the past 20 years, the importance of human genetic information has exploded. Whether sought for medical treatment, disease prediction studies, cultural studies, or the general study of human origins, human genetic information is now viewed as crucial for scientific research and general attempts at human understanding.

With the importance of genetic information have come bitter battles over its control. The demonstrated power of human genetic information has moved the issue of its “ownership” from the realm of musty academic musings to protracted political and legal battles among “source” individuals, researchers, commercial concerns, government agencies, and others. Whether collected through targeted scientific studies, “discarded” biological tissue, initial charitable bequest, or other means, genetic information and the biological materials in which it is contained have become the subject of protracted legal battles for control and intense social and ethical controversy.

Our society currently faces many complex and perplexing issues related to biotechnology, including the need to define the outer boundaries of genetic research on human beings and the need to protect individual and group rights to human tissue and the knowledge gained from the study of that tissue. Scientists have increasingly become interested in studying so-called “population isolates” to discover the nature and location of genes that are unique to particular groups. Indigenous peoples are often targeted by scientists because “the relative isolation of the communities ensures minimal gene flow.” Such studies raise a number of issues related to privacy rights, property rights, informed consent, and group rights versus individual rights. These issues recently came to light in a case brought by the Havasupai Tribe and its members over the use of blood samples, handprints, and genealogy information initially taken by researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) for a diabetes project. These materials were then allegedly used by researchers at ASU and other institutions for a multitude of unauthorized purposes, including research into the frequency of mental health disorders and the origin of human populations. Consequently, the affected members sued for damages under several legal theories. However, underlying all of these claims was the allegation that this unauthorized use of genetic resources and data not only injured the individuals who gave samples, but also caused a collective harm to the Havasupai Tribe and the cultural and spiritual beliefs of its members.

In his 21st-century explorer’s uniform, Nordiclooking Spencer Wells kneels alongside nearly naked, smaller, African hunters who sport bows and arrows. Featured on the National Geographic Web site, “Explorer-in-Residence” Wells hold a bachelor’s and doctorate degree in biology. He is also a filmmaker who both masterminded and hosted National Geographic’s 2002 documentary, The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey, which explains to non-scientists a molecular anthropology narrative of how humans left Africa 60,000 years ago to populate the rest of the globe.

In his latest exploratory adventure, Wells is the project leader and spokesperson for the recently announced “Genographic Project,” a “landmark study of the human journey.” In April 2005, National Geographic and IBM, with funding from the Waitt Family Foundation (Gateway computers), launched the Genographic Project as a five-year “research partnership” that aims to “trace the migratory history of the human species” and “map how the Earth was populated.”

In the opening years of the 21st century, it became fashionable to describe the human genome as belonging to the common heritage of humanity. The United Nations, in its Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, now identifies the human genome as part of the common heritage, as does the international Human Genome Organization (HUGO) and the Council of Europe. The common heritage concept has played a prominent role in arguments against patenting the human genome or portions thereof. This essay considers whether the common heritage designation will advance the political and legal goals of its proponents.

Although scientific and commercial excitement about genomic biobanks has subsided since the biotech bust in 2000, they continue to fascinate life scientists, bioethicists, and politicians alike. Indeed, these assemblages of personal health information, human DNA, and heterogeneous capital have become and remain important events in the ethics and politics of the life sciences. For starters, they continue to reveal and produce the central scientific, technological, and economic paradigms so ascendant in biology today: genome, infotech, and market. Biobanks also illustrate what might be called the new distributive politics of biomedical research. Within those politics, the commodification of persons – or at the very least, of their informational representations – has challenged the ontological, ethical, and political underpinnings of the social contract between researchers and their human research subjects. In brief, biobanks are unsettling relations between genes, tissue, medical records, and persons (both individual and collective). But it is also clear that these relations are increasingly being restructured by new rights of control, access, exclusion, and use known as “property,” both material and intellectual.

In a recent article published in the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, David DeGrazia criticized the two pivotal assumptions that underlie President Bush’s policy on funding stem cell research. Those assumptions are (1) that we originate as single-cell zygotes at the time of conception and (2) that we have full moral status as soon as we originate.

In this paper, I would like to concentrate on the first of those assumptions and show in light of recent findings in embryological development that DeGrazia’s criticisms have to be rejected. I shall save my discussion of DeGrazia’s critique of the second assumption for a later article that can take into account DeGrazia’s further elaboration of his position.

We say that celebrated accidents shape public perception of safety and risk in health care. Take the so-called celebrated story of the three Colorado nurses who, by administering bezathine penicillin intravenously, caused the death of a neonate. The nurses were charged with criminal negligence, with one pleading guilty to a reduced charge and another fighting the charge and eventually being exonerated. “Celebrated” accidents (i.e., celebrated in the media and, accordingly, popular imagination, amplified momentarily by the media as it may get ferried along from courtroom to courtroom) seem to follow a predictable script and cast participants in recognizable roles. They present heroes (e.g., a care provider who tried to save the patient despite the odds and errors of others), survivors, and victims. And, of course, they put villains, or anti-heroes, center stage – the chief protagonists of a fatal plot.

Every September, millions of parents around the country herd their children into pediatricians’ offices with school immunization forms in hand. Their kids have already received a dozen or more shots before the age of two, and, depending on the state in which they live, a dozen more may await them over the ensuing decade. To protect public health, states require that parents have their children immunized before they are permitted to attend public or private school, but the rules vary for homeschooled children. With the spectacular growth in the number of homeschooled students, it is becoming more difficult to reach these youth to ensure that they are immunized at all. These children are frequently unvaccinated, leaving them open to infection by diseases that have been all but stamped out in the United States by immunization requirements. States should encourage parents to have their homeschooled students vaccinated by enacting the same laws that are used for public school students, enforcing current laws through neglect petitions, or requiring that children be immunized before participating in school-sponsored programs.

The Canadian law governing informed consent was significantly influenced by the decision of its Supreme Court in Reibl v. Hughes, a case that involved a physician’s failure to warn the patient about the risk of stroke after carotid endarterectomy. Even though most Canadian plaintiffs after Reibl have continued to lose informed consent cases, it is likely that the judgement in this case has significantly influenced the manner in which physicians now approach the discussion of risk while obtaining consent not only in Canada but also in several other jurisdictions.

The development of informed consent law in the United States similarly became one of the drivers for change in physicians’ practices of information disclosure to their patients. The effect of Reibl on clinical practice is an outstanding example of the law’s positive influence on medical practice, especially in protecting patient autonomy during collaborative medical decision-making.