Github'd genome license has interesting restrictions for cloning

sgentle 15 years ago |

My first thought was "do clones count as kin for the 'closest of kin' statements in that license?"

Last thing this guy needs is more reasons for his clones to kill him.

gst 15 years ago |

First, if this data has been obtained via a service such as 23andme cloning wouldn't be possible anyway, as the identified SNPs are only a small subset of the full genome.

However, lets assume that this is a full genome - in regard to cloning there may be some interesting legal consequences in some countries: For example, in European countries there have been some cases where sperm donors have been sued to pay alimonies. It wouldn't suprise me that if someone clones your DNA, one of those courts would define you as legal father and force you to pay alimonies.

biotronic 15 years ago | |

Oh, it's much worse than that. Not only would the original be the father, it would also be the same person. Hence, the original could be tried for any and every crime the clone commited.

sorbus 15 years ago | | |

That fails the identical twin test: is one half of a pair of identical twins who share the same DNA able to be tried for any crime that the other commits? The answer is obviously no.

andrewnez 15 years ago |

I read this as restrictions on cloning the git repo rather than the person, I'm obviously too deep in the code!

possibilistic 15 years ago |

Outside of a few circumstances, it's not so interesting to clone a whole organism. A gene? Absolutely, yes. Do it all the time. A cell? Sure, especially if we can create a novel cell line. But a whole multicellular organism? ...I really can't see much scientific use for that.

zdw 15 years ago |

Well, this makes that lock of Justin Beiber's hair I bought on eBay even more valuable - it's Royalty Free!

I don't really own that... but seeing as bits of ephemeral DNA-containing material from famous people tend to be collectible, it's a plausible future possibility.

knowtheory 15 years ago |

Interestingly unenforceable :P

bhousel 15 years ago | |

Well yeah, it would seem to violate the 13th amendment..

Edit: I believe it's a form of debt bondage (peonage) that is prohibited by international law too. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage

kenneth_reitz 15 years ago | | |

You're assuming the clone would be born in the US.

Frazzydee 15 years ago | | |

You're assuming that the governing law is that of the place of birth of the clone.

tomjen3 15 years ago | | |

Do you have any case law to assume otherwise?

tibbon 15 years ago | |

True, but it isn't all that dissimilar from the genetic patents that Monsanto and similar hold.

jmtulloss 15 years ago | | |

Can you elaborate?

possibilistic 15 years ago | | |

Monsanto clones in genes that are resistant to its herbicide, Roundup, which is a simple glycine derivative. These molecules bind tightly to a key enzyme in three amino acid synthesis pathways, and since these molecules bind with such affinity, the enzyme can't dislodge it within a reasonable timeframe/equilibrium. Without the AAs, the plant dies.

Due to patents, Monsanto owns the rights to any plants with the gene--including offspring. Farmers have to continually license the plants to grow them. One unfortunate soul had a neighboring farmer's crops cross pollinate his own, and Monsanto came down hard on him--it was a pretty big incident.

fleitz 15 years ago | | |

Save for one fact, there is no law which prohibits the owning of animals or planet, or indentured servitude of animals or plants. Thus what Monsanto does is enforceable while this would likely not be.

cariaso 15 years ago |