2021 ARGUMENTATIVE GLOBAL WINNERS
FIRST PLACE: Felipe Tomaz Tancredo, Brazil (with ELL Distinction)
SECOND PLACE: Tan Hwaiyin, Singapore
THIRD PLACE: Xi Qiao Hu, USA
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER: Mukhamed Sagyntaiuly, Kazakhstan
First Place
Are intentions or outcomes more important when judging whether actions are moral?
Felipe Tomaz Tancredo, argumentative category
BRAZIL
Colégio Militar de Porto Alegre
The Misconception of Intent
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, nearly 100 people die due to traffic accidents in the United States every single day. Oftentimes, when reading the news, one might see journalists describe those car crashes and other accidents as fatalities, unavoidable disasters. At times, as well, individuals may justify offensive or even hateful discourse by claiming there were no ill intentions meant. Even though those situations could be easily avoided by minor behavioral changes, ever-growing views held by our society appear to claim that intent is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. Unintentional offenses tend to be seen in much less of a negative light than other, premeditated acts. Very often, a lack of ill intentions will be pointed out by society as a reason for acquittal, even when the action is a result of negligence or bad faith. However, believing that the responsibility for certain crimes arises mainly from bad intentions is gravely mistaken, and a dangerous assumption to make.
Not focusing on the outcomes when judging someone’s actions presents a potential risk to our society’s well-being by condoning problematic, or even criminal, behaviors that should be broadly frowned upon. This perspective is reinforced by society’s stereotypical view of a criminal: a despicable, ill-intentioned fiend. Such a view ignores the fact that most criminals do not display evil intentions at all because, simply put, the overwhelming majority of people are not evil. Any well-intentioned person may make mistakes and be judged accordingly, lest they remain eternally vigilant. Unfortunate accidents usually happen when regular folk forget a certain precaution or merely use the wrong expression.
A stance supported by various philosophers is that the primary means we have to rightfully judge someone is by analyzing the actual consequences of their actions. Since the dawn of the modern age, a growing number of philosophers have stood behind outcome-oriented thinking. John Stuart Mill, one of the most influential thinkers of Western history, was an adamant defender of what came to be known as consequentialism. In one of his greatest works, Utilitarianism, Stuart asserted that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness [and] wrong as they tend to produce [pain]”. That is, he claimed that actions should be exclusively judged by their consequences, defined as their aggregate effects on other human beings, for better or for worse. Despite other philosophers—mainly his Kantian adversaries, supportive of intention-oriented ethics—having disagreed with him over the centuries, many of Mill’s core claims still stand today, such as the view that moral absolutes are not the only principles that should guide our morality, but physical and psychological effects on others as well. Most philosophers agree on especially frowning upon actions with bad consequences that also display hints of negligence or irresponsible behavior.
Contemporarily, a paper that comes to mind when discussing the morality of intentions and outcomes is “What Is It Like to Be a Bat?”, by philosopher Thomas Nagel. The work described the impossibility of fully understanding the mental processes that control other rational being’s minds. The American philosopher utilizes the titular bat example by declaring that the only way to grasp why a bat acts the way it does and operates in its own particular manner is being the bat. Taking Nagel’s observations into account, one must conclude that accurately inferring the true intentions of another moral agent is an impossible feat.
As stated earlier, the morality of outcomes is not yet a matter set in stone. However, the diverse ethical theories introduced by philosophers over the ages beg the question: if Nagel and Mill’s statements could be true, how to justify the legal system’s persistence on judging people mostly based on intentions, when the willfulness of a crime is such a subjective matter? Maintaining an intentions-oriented system creates juridical instability, as more and more trials are left to the interpretation of judges and juries, shown to be naturally affected—as all human beings are—by numerous cognitive biases.
Moreover, the grounds for an outcome-oriented morality are not limited to the realm of philosophy. Sociologically speaking, we can also perceive the dreadful impacts of intent-oriented thinking in American society. Research conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that driving under the influence alone causes 32% of road accident-related fatalities in the United States every year. Distracted driving causes from 25 to 50% of accidents, and, according to the World Health Organization, every 1% increase in driving speed causes a mean 4% increase in speeding accident fatality rates. All these deaths are avoidable and occur due to negligence, but society still tends to see traffic accidents as mere casualties and those responsible for them as “victims of destiny”. There have been some advances in this area, such as in the state of Georgia, which punishes manslaughter committed under the influence with up to 15 years of incarceration, nearly equating it to murder charges. However, in the same state, other vehicular homicides involving moving traffic offenses, such as failing to maintain the correct lane position, are punished with only up to a year in prison. This is unacceptable, for the punishment is not nearly severe enough for drivers to be disincentivized from acting negligently and potentially endangering many lives while driving. One could argue that premeditated crimes should in fact be punished more heavily than accidents that occur due to mere irresponsibility, due to the cruelty involved. For example, in some American states, even the death penalty is permitted in cases of first-degree murder. However, while it is a reasonable point to bring up, accidental crimes still should not be as lightly punished as they are today.
Other kinds of accidents, with natures ranging from falls to firearms, aren’t treated by society with enough seriousness. According to the World Health Organization, around 600,000 deaths worldwide happen due to accidental falls every year. These falls range from bathroom slips to plunges down canyons, but they all have something in common: their preventability. Evidently, with better safety precautions in all areas involved, these numbers could be greatly reduced. The same goes for firearm accidents: according to Harvard and Vermont University researchers, more than 400 gun-related fatal accidents occur in the United States per year, on average. Most of the victims are also minors, known to have limited responsibility for their actions, handling a parent’s firearm that was unsafely stored. Therefore, one must conclude that the responsibility for accidents like this rests on external factors, such as parental negligence or lenient lawmaking. The data suggests that with clear responsibilization of those involved and effective policy changes, both scenarios could change. In order to do so, the ones responsible for these tragic numbers, such as government officials or private parties, must be appropriately prosecuted.
Furthermore, the intentions and outcomes debate also comes to mind when talking about discrimination, especially in the workplace. The perception that bigoted jokes or behaviors could be excused by a lack of bad intentions from the offender is extremely harmful to efforts towards equality in our society. Gender discrimination is one of the best examples of this: according to the United States Equal Employment Commission, 54% of women interviewed report having been harassed in the workplace at some point. The definition of harassment used includes verbal assault, inappropriate physical contact and other kinds of violations. This same commission also found out that 75% of employees who do report such behavior suffer some kind of retaliation. This hinders workers’ intentions to report such behavior, as shown by a survey conducted by the company HR Acuity, uncovering that about 40% of employees reported uncertainty or fear as to whether complaints of harassment or other problematic behavior would be appropriately dealt with, at times even fearing they would be punished for filing the complaint. David Lewis, C.E.O. of the Human Resources consulting company OperationsInc, argues that "You hear from people that they didn't intend to offend anyone, [...] [but] that's almost irrelevant. The victim's viewpoint matters most. People put way too much emphasis on intent rather than perception”.
Thus, if we wish to reduce the incidence of negligence-related fatalities in our societies, we must begin to scrutinize these types of behaviors and recognize that failing to be a responsible citizen, respecting others and the law can lead to serious consequences. Society must stop justifying those responsible for accidents by citing a lack of ill intentions. Policy must be implemented to reduce the incidence of the various types of accidents that kill thousands in the United States today, for, by allowing such incidents to happen, those who omit themselves will also become indirectly responsible. We, as a society, must crack down on discriminatory behavior with a focus on the fact that intentions are irrelevant in those situations. Workers should not feel afraid of repression if they report discriminatory behavior in the workplace, and legislators should keep discussing law alterations seeking greater objectivity. Only if these changes are implemented we may move toward a fairer environment for all.
second Place
Should individuals own their own DNA?
Tan Hwaiyin, argumentative category
Singapore
Cedar Girls' Secondary School
In April 2003, the human genome was sequenced in its entirety for the first time in history under the Human Genome Project. It was a mammoth endeavour, involving scientists from seven countries and costing upwards of $5 billion dollars. Now, barely two decades later, it costs less than a thousand dollars to get your whole genome sequenced. This reduced cost—as well as the thrill of discovering one’s deepest, darkest biological secrets—has fueled the consumer genetic testing market. The increased demand for genetic testing, however, has raised security and privacy concerns surrounding the business practices of these companies. This has led some to advocate for legislation ensuring individuals’ ownership rights to their genetic information. Unfortunately, establishing individual ownership rights to DNA is more difficult than it seems, and can even cause more harm than good. As such, legal parameters instituting ownership rights of genetic information should not be set, because the challenges and disadvantages in doing so outweigh the potential benefits.
The first challenge in implementing DNA ownership rights is in defining what ‘genetic information’ constitutes. Broadly speaking, genetic information includes genealogical information, racial composition, as well as health-based information like genetic markers for certain diseases. However, it is nearly impossible to separate genetic information from medical information, given how inextricably linked the two are. For example, conditions like cystic fibrosis are hereditary, and as such, could be said to fall under genetic information. On the other hand, a cystic fibrosis diagnosis is ostensibly also defined as medical information, appearing in patients' medical records, and there is no way to keep a diagnosis secret from doctors, even if it is genetic in nature. This makes it almost impossible to determine the scope of health-based genetic information that can be feasibly protected by law. The result? Badly written, overly restrictive legislation which can lead to information gaps in patient records. At best, this is inconvenient and time-consuming; at worst, it can be life-threatening.
There are also other conflicts that can arise as a result of poorly constructed genetic ownership laws. In the case of married couples, there is the question of whether spouses have an obligation to release their genetic information to their partner once they are legally married. Genetic information can heavily influence decisions regarding family planning, so it makes sense for an individual to be required to share that information with their spouse. However, this could be seen as compromising the integrity of an individual’s right to genetic privacy. Herein lies the dilemma: does a spouse’s right to know take precedence over their partner’s right to privacy? Additionally, if genetic information was to be classified and protected as property, spouses would then have equal access to and control over each other’s genetic information, similar to how finances are divided among couples. This would appear to completely erase the rationale behind instituting genetic ownership legislation in the first place; namely, to protect the rights and interests of the individual regarding their own genetic information.
A final obstacle in constructing protections of genetic information relates to the fact that DNA is shared among family members. When someone is diagnosed with a serious, inherited medical condition like Alzheimer’s, there is a chance that close relatives could end up developing the condition as well. In a scenario like this, the altruistic course of action would be to disclose one’s genetic information to relatives who could be at risk of developing the condition. Once again, this comes into conflict with the objective of genetic privacy, which is to ensure that only the individual whose genetic material is involved can decide who they share their genetic information with. With the amount of ambiguity surrounding the intricacies of implementing genetic ownership rights, it may just be better to let sleeping dogs lie.
Even if a legal consensus regarding how to classify and protect genetic information could be reached, the ensuing consequences could be devastating to society at large. Universal individual ownership of genetic information can, for instance, impede scientific progress. Genetic testing companies often sell customer data to pharmaceutical companies for the purposes of medical research and drug development. A notable example was in 2018, when GlaxoSmithKline secured a $300 million dollar stake in the genetic testing company 23andMe, allowing the pharma juggernaut to mine 23andMe’s databases to develop new medicines. The introduction of genetic privacy laws, however, could make such licensing agreements a thing of the past. Under such legislation, only individuals who provide enthusiastic consent would have their genetic information released for use in medical research. With the sample size of genetic data available greatly reduced, the pace of medical innovation would decelerate drastically, placing human society even further away from a cure for life-threatening conditions like sickle cell disease or type I diabetes. While good for the individual, genetic privacy laws could be detrimental to society at large, particularly those chronically ill or otherwise medically vulnerable.
A second disadvantage could also be derived from the cessation of data licensing agreements, namely that genetic testing could be made much less accessible. Contrary to public perception, direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies do not generate the bulk of their revenue from the sale of genetic test kits; instead, they make most of their money through the aforementioned sale of consumer data. With pharmaceutical companies no longer interested in buying data for research, genetic testing companies would be forced to hike up their test kit prices to maintain profitability, driving down demand as people are dissuaded from purchasing tests due to the cost. While larger firms like 23andMe and AncestryDNA might be able to survive, smaller companies would collapse under the financial strain, simultaneously reducing the supply of genetic tests available to the public. As testing becomes more expensive and less accessible, people with lower incomes would be less inclined to get their DNA tested for potential health risks. On the other hand, the wealthy would remain able to afford genetic tests, allowing them to detect any possible health conditions early on and receive life-saving medical intervention. Over time, this could result in a sharp healthcare gap between the rich and the poor, exacerbating existing income disparities.
There are those who argue that the need for DNA ownership was directly borne out of the pharmaceutical industry’s use of consumer genetic data. They claim that laws protecting genetic information merely allow people to opt out of having their data used in medical research, and that there are plenty of others willing to take part in such studies. Even if this was true, genetic data is not exclusively used to develop drugs. Instead, it can also be useful to law enforcement. In 2018, DNA data from MyHeritage, a private genetic testing company, was used to identify a relative of the Golden State Killer, allowing police to arrest and prosecute Joseph DeAngelo for the crimes he committed more than 40 years ago. When it comes to criminal investigations, only people directly related to the suspect can assist law enforcement, so there is no substituting willing participants for those who want to ‘opt out’. As the result of some statutes of limitations, criminal investigations can also be extremely time-sensitive, and law enforcement waste precious time obtaining permission from relatives to use their genetic information. Therefore, everyone, even those who would prefer to keep their genetic information private, should be required to submit their data to law enforcement when necessary in order to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens.
In summary, while the pursuit of genetic ownership in the spirit of preserving individual civil liberties seems noble, it comes with significant challenges, both in drafting suitable common sense legislation and in the execution of said legislation. DNA is intimately and inextricably linked to an individual’s identity, so it seems logical that the person who contributed the genetic information should be able to control what is done with it. Unfortunately, while the prospect of genetic ownership is attractive, there is a lack of agreement on what it truly means to own your DNA. Until such disputes can be effectively resolved, and methods of ameliorating potential drawbacks devised, implementing genetic ownership is simply not realistic. Instead of rushing headlong into the beguiling promise of freedom, we need to exercise caution in evaluating the risks of giving individuals control over their DNA. Otherwise, we might just end up getting more than we bargained for.
third Place
Are intentions or outcomes more important when judging whether actions are moral?
Xi Qiao Hu, argumentative category
United States of America
Phillips Academy Andover
By the early 2010s, TOMS shoes had risen to international glory. With a generation of loyal consumers swooning over their minimalist canvas design, TOMS’ trademark alpargatas quickly became a wardrobe essential. What’s more, TOMS also pioneered the buy-one-give-one business model—for every pair of shoes purchased, the company would donate another pair to impoverished youth in the developing world. In a time when the ethics of fast fashion were under scrutiny, TOMS’ corporate activism offered consumers an opportunity to virtue signal, to give back and to look good doing it. But the real impact TOMS shoes left on the world fell short of the brand’s noble intentions. Investigations revealed that TOMS’ buy-one-give-one initiative did little to improve the living conditions in underdeveloped communities and, on certain occasions, even exacerbated poverty. The distribution of nearly 100 million pairs of donated shoes crowded out local cobblers, many of whom relied on selling children’s sneakers to earn a living wage. Furthermore, the communities targeted by TOMS in their “one-for-one” campaign were often in need of more vital resources—water, food, electricity—which were completely disregarded by the company.
As modern consumers, we live in a hyperconnected world, where the consequences of our most trivial actions ripple outwards on an international scale. In this era of rapid globalization, individuals now bear an additional responsibility to act not only with noble intentions in mind, but with heightened sensitivity to the outcomes produced by their actions. The sprinkle of sesame seeds topping an American Big Mac, for instance, are farmed in the Indian city of Ghaziabad, shipped across the Atlantic Ocean, delivered to manufacturers of McDonald’s sesame buns, then distributed to individual stores, where they are paired with beef patties made from cows raised on Brazilian farmland that was once Amazon rainforest, as well as shredded lettuce, cheese, and condiments—each sourced from different international locations. As consumers, therefore, the three dollars we spend on fast food now have implications for global labor rights, environmental preservation, and a host of other concerns. The complexity of these transactions is dizzying and can inspire cynicism, but luckily, no individual has to face these challenges alone. We can begin by abandoning the notion that righteous intentions are a reliable measurement of moral behavior. Moreover, we must embrace a rigorous consequentialist outlook that informs our public policy responses to the global crises and challenges of our era.
The premise that outcomes ought to be prioritized in our moral analysis can be readily understood in the world of social activism and advocacy, where even the best of intentions does not guarantee favorable outcomes. For example, the participation of “allies” in protests and demonstrations, if ill-received, can eclipse the message and core goals of the social movement. What is takes to be a productive ally is, in fact, still hotly disputed today. White allies, for instance, eager to participate in the Black Lives Matter movement, sometimes created a self-centered sideshow discussing their personal feelings of guilt and complicity. While they may have meant well in their participatory efforts, hoping to use their platform and privilege to raise public awareness, certain white allies inadvertently hogged the media spotlight. That said, the solution is not necessarily for social movements to be closed-off or insulated, but rather for allies to understand that contributing to a cause may require them to take different actions and approaches than what they originally expected. An outcome-focused view of morality would encourage these allies to take less intuitive, more effective steps to advocate for social causes they believe in; perhaps that means donating money to a social campaign or using their vote to push for tangible reforms. Decoupling our moral analysis from the assessment of intentions ultimately raises the bar for individuals to be nuanced and critical in assessing the connection between their actions and desired outcomes.
Conversely, when individuals contribute to public well-being in tangible ways, we should not scrutinize the purity of their intentions too zealously. Take, for instance, a law firm that regularly assigns their attorneys pro-bono cases, providing free legal services to indigent defendants. As a result of their work, countless in-need individuals receive better outcomes in court. Often, however, pro-bono work is undertaken not simply out of the firm’s good will or purity of heart, but as a form of corporate self-promotion. At any rate, to a defendant wrongfully accused of crime or to a plaintiff seeking justice, whether the firm undertakes pro-bono cases ultimately to enhance their own reputation or to engage in selfless patronage is a trivial concern as compared to whether or not they can put forth a compelling case in court. Social activists and reformers must be open to instances when the profit motive, careerism, or other “impure” impulses can be powerful drivers of just moral outcomes.
More broadly, to draw accurate moral judgements, we first ought to surrender and debunk the myth that noble intentions always precede and underlie productive outcomes. Even committed philanthropists are often motivated by personal interests in their altruism—the hope of earning social recognition for their good deeds, or in the case of religious charity, the hope of being deemed worthy in the eyes of God. Involvement in altruistic causes, in any capacity, gives individuals a feel-good rush of moral gratification. “Corrupt” or hedonistic intentions may still, therefore, produce valuable outcomes and inspire individuals to perform good deeds.
Admittedly, when judging the legacy of an individual, consequential analysis will not always yield clear moral judgements. The process of consequential reasoning will, however, point us to the full picture of the impacts produced by an individual’s actions. Mark Zuckerberg, for instance, famously donated 100 million dollars to Newark public schools—does this compensate for his complicity in Facebook’s breach of over 85 million users’ data and information? Andrew Carnegie gave us New York’s famous Carnegie Hall—does this excuse his violent suppression of unionists? These inquiries may seem intimidating and will not always produce solid answers, but questioning the moral value placed on different outcomes at least provides us with a more granular, nuanced framework of morality than deontological reasoning could hope to. Given that we can’t ascertain or even read into the thoughts of other individuals, placing intentions at the forefront of our moral analysis would vastly restrict our ability to critically judge the ethics of any action taken. Until the bounds of our epistemic access are expanded to verify individuals’ claims about their underlying intentions, we ought to embrace consequentialist moral reasoning.
Finally, we must be willing to consider the multitude of solutions available to us in tackling the most pressing problems of our time; eliminating all solutions tied to morally “impure” motivations restricts our ability to respond effectively to global crises. In recent years, for example, more private companies have chosen to enter the green technology industry, motivated by the sector’s potential for profit in the coming decades. While money-hungry companies producing green technology are not always concerned for the environment, they cater towards consumer demand without fail—in this case, by producing eco-friendly products—thereby aiding individuals’ shift to a green lifestyle. Simultaneously, other corporations have co-opted the public’s concern for the environment in their marketing strategies; the British Petroleum company, for instance, underwent a thorough rebranding process and was renamed as “Beyond Petroleum,” despite their continued, unsustainable production of petroleum. Ultimately, policymakers and activists should be neither so naive as to buy into the deceptive branding of oil companies going “green” by changing their corporate logo or, on the other hand, so ideological as to cast all profit-driven corporations as part of the problem, not the solution. We must critically assess which actors deserve praise and which should be held accountable for their impacts on the environment, among other global issues.
An intention-oriented framework of morality grounds our inquiry in the intangible world of emotion, and in that sense, is infantilizing. Parents often excuse the wrongdoing of children who “meant well,” or “didn’t know any better,” or just “didn’t mean it.” Is this really how we want to judge ourselves as adults? That we “meant well,” but “didn’t know any better?” Should we just strut around in TOMS shoes and hope for the best? As individuals embracing a consequentialist framework, we’re coming to learn what comes with our roles as modern consumers, social activists, and moral agents: the responsibilities we carry and how we can impact the world.
english language learner
Should individuals own their own DNA?
Mukhamed Sagyntaiuly, argumentative category
Kazakhstan
NIS
The human body is comprised of trillions and trillions of building blocks called cells. Every cell is a carrier of an essential molecule, DNA, that stores genetic code. Even 0.03% of your genome will be enough to predict your ancestry, personal traits, and possible hereditary diseases. Whenever you clip your nails or have a haircut, you give up this essential piece of data. Parts of yourself – and, subsequently, your DNA – are scattered all across your home within microscopic hair or skin cells. But what if a stranger obtained your biological material? What if – for whatever reason – the state or large corporations started to get interested in your genetic information? How can they use it? Would you be happy to share the most personal information you have? The ease with which DNA material can be gotten has raised concerns about the privacy and ownership over an individual’s genetic code. In addition, the constantly increasing popularity of private companies like 23andMe or Ancestry DNA, which offer consumer genetic testing, creates worries about privacy risks. In understanding this, it is blindingly clear that in order to reflect the values of modern society better and protect the individual security of every person, people should have complete ownership over their DNA.
Over the course of recent years, the value of privacy has constantly been increasing in the eyes of society. People started to care about the confidentiality and security of their data more and more. The headlines of the world’s media are filled with controversy regarding the usage of personal information by tech giants like Facebook and Google. Leaks in government databases could result in a worldwide scandal: in 2020, Russia-backed hackers attacked United States federal government organizations and caused data breaches. Such events show how much value we put in private information nowadays. Genetic code is the same type of personal data, just a lot more valuable. This principle is even directly stated in the latest European Union laws on privacy – General Data Protection Regulation (more known as GDPR). To ensure privacy and security, the right to control who gets access to their DNA should be an exclusive right of each individual. Extensive databases of genetic codes could be subjected to hacking. In fact, such leaks are already happening: in 2018, more than 92 million accounts of MyHeritage, a DNA testing company, were found online. It could be argued that the ownership over DNA by an individual can damage the efficiency of law enforcement. In order to identify perpetrators of crime, the United States’ FBI access DNA databases to compare biological materials from crime scenes with materials of convicted arrestees. However, the usage of natural materials in investigation often violates the principle of privacy. In 2013 in Maryland v. King case, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that DNA samples can be collected even from suspects who weren’t proven guilty. The dissenting justices pointed out that “DNA can be taken and entered into a national database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason”, giving law enforcement a right to violate your privacy. By implementing such methods, we are justifying the end by its illegitimate means. If police cannot access the iPhone of the criminal without their permission, why can police acquire their DNA without their permission?
To fully realize the dilemma about whether people should own their DNA, we should consider ethical problems that arise if people lack such rights. Back in the mid-1950s, African American women Henrietta Lacks were diagnosed with cancer. To better understand the nature of her disease, doctors abstracted cancerous cells and analyzed them. They later found out that a mutation granted those cells an ability to self-preserve and not die out, unlike normal cells. Because of this unique characteristic, those HeLa cells, which were obtained 60 years ago, are still used in scientific research. However, neither Henrietta nor any of her family members gave any consent to the continuous use of her samples. While pharmaceutics corporations made colossal profits on the medicines derived from those cells, the family didn’t even know that Henrietta’s cells were alive. The Lacks have not been compensated for Henrietta’s cells and virtually did not receive anything from that. From the ethical point of view, it would be fairer if underprivileged and impoverished Lacks were at least notified how the cells of their family member are used. As a part of the right to own their DNA, patients should have the power to decide how their biological samples are used. Any unauthorized access to the genome by third parties should be strictly prohibited. Polls show that the populace agrees that it should be possible to patients to claim a share of income if their DNA is used in the commercial field. Such ideas are even suggested by American Medical Association; however, there are no legal grounds for that. Some could think that granting people ownership over their DNA could damage scientific activities. In reality, studies show that people are generally willing to share their DNA for the greater good. Furthermore, more than 80% of customers of 23andMe genetic services voluntarily agree to participate in the company’s research initiative. Data collected from these people were helpful in determining the disease risks associated with specific genetic variants, including psychiatric conditions like ADHD, depression, and neuroticism. This example illustrates that the research activity is not disrupted even if individuals have the right to decide how their genome is used.
Another critical thing to consider while discussing the ownership rights over DNA is how the situation can change in the future. With genetic code, it is easy to predict with nearly 100% certainty a person’s genealogy, ancestry, personal psychological and physiological traits, or genetically inherited diseases. On the current level of technological development, the worst thing related to the loss of DNA is the leaking of the personal information associated with DNA. Alternatively, in the future, this could be the most innocuous thing to occur. With the ever-increasing speed of advancements in genetic engineering, one could only imagine what can happen if some stranger obtains your DNA. In the years 2018 and 2019, a Chinese scientist Dr He Jiankui created the first genetically modified babies. He altered the genes of the embryos to create a specific sequence that would build immunity against HIV. If modern biology gives such possibilities to one person, it is frightening how the situation can change in the coming decades. Obviously, the most effective way of preventing any such unlawful experiments or manipulations with the genome in the future is granting each individual full ownership right over their DNA. Instead of collecting other’s genomes, law enforcement should ensure the security and privacy of every person’s DNA.
DNA is one of the most valuable assets every person has. If we want to secure values of privacy, security, and morals, ownership of DNA is the necessity. The genetic code should be protected as any other personal data is, while biological samples should be subjected to common ownership rights.