(May
2, 2002, Gazette) Views on the name change
Dear Editor,
The April 11, 2002, issue of the Gazette contained an article on a recent
series of public presentations concerning the commercialization of human
genetic research in this province. As a member of the group that organized
these sessions, I am grateful for the coverage, but would like to clear
up a misunderstanding that may be caused by the article.
The presentations occurred as part of an ongoing project that aims to
provide recommendations to the provincial government as to how commercial
genetic research should be regulated in this province. In preparation
for these presentations, Dr. Daryl Pullman and I prepared a preliminary
project report that was presented at one of the sessions described in
the Gazette article. At one point, the article quotes me as saying
that this report leans towards endorsing the view that human DNA is a
form of private property and so the province should regulate commercial
human genetic research by creating a provincial agency that would advise
individual residents of the province as to what would constitute a fair
return for their participation in genetic research.
In fact, while this is a model our report mentions when describing a variety
of possible approaches to governing commercial human genetic research,
it is a model that is rejected in the report. Rather than viewing human
DNA as private property, our report draws the conclusion that human DNA
does not fit neatly into any of our usual categories. As the article later
notes, we claim that human DNA in some ways resembles a personal possession,
in others a natural resource and, in yet others, the common heritage of
humanity.
This leads us to the conclusion that what is appropriate is not individual
payment for participation in research, but payment to a collective, perhaps
the province as a whole or perhaps a group representing those who suffer
from a particular medical condition. By taking this approach, it is possible
for residents of the province to share the financial returns that commercial
human genetic research may deliver without thereby declaring human DNA
to be just another tradable commodity.
I should add that any conclusions reached in the draft report of our project
are only preliminary ones. Our final report will not be produced until
late summer and the view taken in it may be quite different than the one
we are presently leaning towards. This is particularly true due to the
many helpful comments Dr. Pullman and I received from audience members
at various sessions the Gazette article reported on, as well as
from our fellow presenters, Dr. Henry Greely and Timothy Caulfield.
Anyone wishing to discuss the project further is encouraged to contact
me at 777-6720 or alatus@mun.ca.
Sincerely,
Andrew Latus
Post-doctoral fellow, Medical Ethics
Faculty of Medicine