May 17, 2019 Breakthroughs in genetics have often raised complex ethical and legal questions, which loom ever larger as genetic testing is becoming more commonplace, affordable, and comprehensive and genetic editing becomes poised to be a consumer technology. As genetic technologies become more accessible to individuals, the ethical and legal questions around the consumer use of these technologies become more pressing. As these questions become more pressing, now is the time to re-consider what ethical and regulatory safeguards should be implemented and discuss the many questions raised by advancements in consumer genetics. Presentation: Jessica Roberts, Professor, Alumnae College Professor in Law, and Director of the Health Law & Policy Institute, University of Houston Law Center - In Favor of Genetic Conversion: An Argument for Genetic Property Rights Learn more: https://petrieflom.law.harvard.edu/events/details/2019-petrie-flom-center-annual-conference

1. GENETIC CONVERSION
Jessica L. Roberts, University of Houston Law Center

2.  Elements
 Ownership
 Substantial Interference
 Value
 Defenses
 Abandonment
 Consent
 Relief
 Damages
 Replevin

4. Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
“Since Moore clearly did not expect to retain
possession of his cells following their removal, to
sue for their conversion he must have retained an
ownership interest in them. . . . Neither the Court
of Appeal’s opinion, the parties’ briefs, nor our
research discloses a case holding that a person
retains a sufficient interest in excised cells to
support a cause of action for conversion.”

5. Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
It is not necessary “to force the round pegs
of ‘privacy’ and ‘dignity’ into the square
hole of ‘property’ in order to protect the
patient, since the fiduciary-duty and
informed-consent theories protect these
interests directly by requiring full disclosure.”

7. Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hosp. Research Inst.
“The Court . . . declines to find a property
interest for the body tissue and genetic
information voluntarily given to Defendants.
These were donations to research without any
contemporaneous expectation of return of
the body tissue and genetic samples, and thus
conversion does not lie as a cause of action.”

9. Perlmutter Complaint
The Perlmutters argued that
 They “have an exclusive right of possession
and ownership of the genetic information
encoded in their genetic material” and
 “By collecting, analyzing, and testing their
genetic material to obtain the Perlmutters’
confidential genetic information, Conspirators
exercised an act of dominion and authority
that deprived the Perlmutters of their rights of
ownership, possession, control, and privacy.”

10. Peerenboom v. Perlmutter
“[T]he Perlmutters retained a
property interest in their genetic
information for purposes of a
common law action for
conversion.”

12. Cole v. Gene-by-Gene
“Alaska’s Genetic Privacy Act recognizes an
exclusive property interest in one’s DNA, and
prohibits the unauthorized disclosure of DNA
information. These statutory entitlements bear a
close relationship to the common law torts of
conversion of property and invasion of privacy,
which have each historically provided a basis for
a lawsuit in American courts.”

13. Cole v. Gene-by-Gene
“The court concludes that although Mr.
Cole’s alleged injury—the dissemination
of his DNA test results without his
consent—may not have resulted in a
tangible economic or physical harm, the
injury is sufficiently ‘concrete’ so as to
confirm Article III standing.”

14. Genetic Conversion?

15. Summing up…
 (1) Courts are showing a newfound openness to
claims for genetic conversion.
 (2) Claims for genetic conversion will not stifle
research or create moral harms.
 (3) In certain contexts, like consumer genetics, claims
for genetic conversion are actually necessary to
adequately protect people’s interests in their DNA.

16. Thank you for your
time!
Email: jrobert6@central.uh.edu
Twitter: @jrobertsuhlc
Jessica L.
Roberts
Alumnae College
Professor in Law
Director, Health
Law & Policy
Institute
University of
Houston Law
Center