Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-rwnhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-15T03:56:33.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Rights of Ancient DNA: The Impact of Cultural Importance on the Ownership of Genetic Information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2009

Lisa M. Elliott
Lisa M. Elliott
Affiliation:
School of Law, Western New England College. Email: elliottlm1@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the way property rights can be applied to DNA from ancient sources. In particular, it examines the ways in which the legal classification of a source as a “cultural artifact” can influence the assignment of property rights over genetic information. I explore the discrepancy between the legal ability to own ancient dead bodies but not nonancient dead bodies, illustrating how dead bodies with a perceived cultural value are legally distinct from those which are not considered to have cultural value. Second, I address the way such cultural preservation laws fail to influence ownership rights over genetic information. Finally, I propose a model for the best way to deal with genetic information from ancient sources, based on the policies of the International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , May 2009 , pp. 103 - 129
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ades, Stephanie Ann. “The Archaeological Resources Protection Act: A New Application in the Private Property Context.” Catholic University Law Review 44 (1995): 599–630.Google Scholar
Bahn, Paul. “Do Not Disturb? Archaeology and the Rights of the Dead.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 1, no. 2 (1984): 213–225.Google Scholar
David, A. R. “Disease in Egyptian Mummies: The Contribution of New Technologies.” Lancet 349 (1997): 1760–1763.Google Scholar
Fowler, Brenda. Iceman. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Handt, O. et al. “Molecular Genetic Analysis of the Tyrolean Ice Man.” Science 264 (1994): 1775–1778.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hardcastle, Ron. Law and the Human Body: Property Rights, Ownership and Control. Portland, OR: Hart, 2007.Google Scholar
Harry, Debra, and Kanehe, Le'a Malia. “Asserting Tribal Sovereignty Over Cultural Property: Moving Towards Protection of Genetic Material and Indigenous Knowledge.” Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 2006: 27–55.Google Scholar
Holm, Soren. “The Privacy of Tutankhamen—Utilising the Genetic Information in Stored Tissue Samples.” Theoretical Medicine 22 (2001): 437–499.Google Scholar
Knoppers, Bartha. “Population Genetics and Benefit Sharing.” Community Genetics 3 (2000): 212–214.Google Scholar
Lambert-Zazulak, Patricia. “The International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank at the Manchester Museum.” Antiquity 74, no. 283 (March 2000): 44–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert-Zazulak, Patricia I., Rutherford, Patricia, and David, A Rosalie. “The International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank at the Manchester Museum as a Resource for the Palaeoepidemiological Study of Schistosomiasis.” World Archaeology 35, no. 2 (2003): 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, Michael. “Legal Limitations on Genetic Research and the Commercialization of Its Results.” American Journal of Comparative Law 54 (2006): 45–65.Google Scholar
Manchester Museum Committee. “Policy Document for the Strategic Development of the Manchester Museum.” The Manchester Museum Reports and Policies. http://www.museum.manchester.ac.uk/aboutus/reportspolicies/ (June 2004) accessed September 24, 2008.Google Scholar
Merryman, John Henry. Thinking About the Elgin Marbles: Critical Essays on Cultural Property, Art and Law. Cambridge, England: Kluwer Law International, 2000.Google Scholar
Miller, R. L., et al. “Palaeoepidemiology of Schistosoma Infection in Mummies.” British Medical Journal 304 (1992): 555–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muller, Wolfgang, et al. . “Origin and Migration of the Alpine Iceman.” Science 302 (2003): 862–866.Google Scholar
Murray, John. “Owning Genes: Disputes Involving DNA Sequence Patents.” Chicago: Kent Law Review 75 (1999): 231–257.Google Scholar
Nwabueze, Remingius. Biotechnology and the Challenge of Property: Property Rights in Dead Bodies, Body Parts, and Genetic Information. Burlington, United Kingdom: Ashgate, 2007.Google Scholar
Ossorio, Pilar. “The Human Genome as Common Heritage: Common Sense or Legal Nonsense?” The Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35, no. 3 (2007): 425–439.Google Scholar
Pääbo, Svante. “Molecular cloning of ancient Egyptian mummy DNA.” Nature, April 1985: 644–645.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paradise, Jordan, and Andrews, Lori. “Tales from the Crypt: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Considerations for Biohistorical Analysis of Deceased Historical Figures.” Temple Journal of Science, Technology and Environmental Law 26 (2007): 223–299.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. “UNESCO and UNIDROIT: A partnership against trafficking in cultural objects, UNESCO Uniform L R, 1996–1.” Uniform Law Review 1 (1996): 59–71. ⟨http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001050/105002E.pdf⟩ accessed on April 30, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ray, S. Alan. “Native American Identity and the Challenge of Kennewick Man.” Temple Law Review 79 (2006): 89–154.Google Scholar
Resnik, D.“The Human Genome: Common Resource but not Common Heritage.” Proceedings of the Frontis Workshop on Ethics for Life Scientists. Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2003. 197–210.Google Scholar
Rollo, Franco, Marota, Isoline, Spigelman, M., and Ambler, R.P.. “How Microbial Ancient DNA, Found in Association with Human Remains, Can Be Interpreted.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Biological Sciences 354 (1999): 111–119.Google Scholar
Sturges, Melissa. “Who Should Hold Property Rights to the Human Genome: An Application of the Common Heritage of Mankind.” American University Law Review 13 (1997): 219–261.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, Ellen. “A World Park in Antarctica: The Common Heritage of Mankind.” Virginia Environmental Law Journal 10 (1990): 109–136.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Organization, Cultural. Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Paris: UNESCO, 1954.Google Scholar
United Nations Educational Scientific. Universal declaration on the human genome, and human rights. Paris: UNESCO, 1997.Google Scholar
Wayne, Robert, Leonard, Jennifer, and Cooper, Alan. “Full of Sound and Fury: The recent history of ancient DNA.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 30 (1999): 457–477.Google Scholar
Willie, Burt. “Kennewick Man—Mission Accomplished?” Idaho Law Review 43 (2006): 301–322.Google Scholar