We are composed of tiny molecular components that can be altered and adjusted in numerous ways, as science has demonstrated. As advancements in DNA technology and genetic engineering improve, these components gain value in unexpected manners.

Evolution has produced diversity across the globe, including within our species. Nature has modified DNA in countless ways. Jamie Metzl's book, Hacking Darwin, illustrates this phenomenon, particularly in the realm of athletics.

Eero Antero Mäntyranta stands out as one of the most accomplished Olympic skiers in Finnish history, clinching seven Olympic medals and two world championships between 1960 and 1972. Genetic testing in the 1990s revealed that Mäntyranta and 29 of his family members possessed unique DNA variations.

This family exhibited a mutation in the EPOR gene, enhancing their hemoglobin production and thus providing them with superior endurance compared to the average individual. Despite his rigorous training and dedication to the sport, Mäntyranta benefited from a genetic advantage bestowed by nature.

Metzl's work also explores the remarkable success of Kenyan long-distance runners, who have secured half of the Olympic long-distance medals over the past three decades, predominantly from the Kalenjin tribe.

While no single gene guarantees marathon success, the Kalenjin are noted for their lower body mass relative to height, shorter torsos, and longer limbs. Research from Sweden in 1990 indicated that a group of 500 Kalenjin children could outpace the top adult Swedish champion in a 2000-meter race. This suggests that, alongside cultural factors, genetics plays a significant role in their athletic prowess.

As Mäntyranta and the Kalenjin have been endowed with specific genetic gifts, so too have others in humanity, some of whom exhibit heightened resistance to cancers and diseases. If we can unravel the genetic blueprints that foster these mutations, it raises an intriguing question:

Who possesses ownership of these unique mutations, and is it even possible to own them? When one authors a story or creates a piece of art, it belongs to them; but does the genetic material within your body equate to personal property?

For those rare individuals with natural resistance to ailments like cancer or AIDS, their DNA could potentially unlock pathways to wealth and recognition—if ownership of this genetic code is indeed valid. This question is currently under scrutiny by corporations, governments, and the legal system.

The name Ananda Chakrabarty may not be familiar, yet this Indian immigrant and microbiologist's laboratory endeavors would revolutionize science and create legal turmoil. An article in the Washington Post states that while employed by General Electric, Chakrabarty engineered a novel bacterium in the late 1960s to early 1970s that had never existed before.

Wonderful, if there’s anything we need on this planet, it’s more bacteria.

But fear not; this bacterium had a remarkable function—it consumed oil, or rather, most of its components. Chakrabarty articulated that this bacterium could aid in oil spills, as it replicated while consuming oil. Composed of 80% protein, it would eventually become food for marine life after digesting the oil.

Since General Electric funded this research, it sought to patent its innovation, specifically, a living organism. However, existing U.S. laws did not explicitly allow for such a patent.

Initially, the Board of Patent Appeals ruled that Congress did not permit the patenting of living organisms. Yet this ruling was overturned by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, culminating in the Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980.

Chakrabarty emerged victorious in this landmark case. Patent attorney Vincent LoTempio noted that the court identified a statute in the existing law that applied directly to this situation:

“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent” — 35 U.S.C. 101

Chakrabarty's bacterium was a product of combining multiple bacterial strains to create something entirely new. He did not simply extract a bacterium from nature and seek to patent it. Thus, in 1980, General Electric successfully filed a patent for a living organism.

That old GE slogan, “We bring good things to life,” turned out to be truer than anyone realized.

In a New Yorker article, Michael Specter discusses the peculiar challenges that arise when individuals or organizations can patent living entities. He specifically addresses Myriad Genetics, a firm specializing in molecular diagnostics that holds patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Courts have previously ruled that isolating and purifying genes grants ownership of those genes.

Why are these genes significant? They are closely linked to breast cancer. Consequently, researchers seeking to study these genes must obtain permission from Myriad Genetics, allowing the company to dictate who can access these genes and under what conditions, as well as set the associated costs.

For those wanting to test for these two genes, a blood test from Myriad Genetics costs around $3,000.

In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit against Myriad Genetics on behalf of 20 clients, resulting in a loss for Myriad. However, prior to this ruling, Myriad granted the plaintiffs access to their data.

The court ruled that one cannot simply extract something from nature and patent it; for instance, one cannot dig up an element and seek to patent it. Nevertheless, the court confirmed that synthetic life could indeed be patented.

The company 23andMe has emerged as a genetics firm offering Direct To Customer (DTC) DNA testing kits, eliminating the need for a physician's involvement. Customers receive a kit to collect saliva and send it back for analysis.

While a comprehensive genetic test can cost around $1,000, 23andMe provides a more affordable option, typically between $100 and $200, by concentrating on specific genome segments. Additionally, the company monetizes genetic data by selling it to biotech firms, thereby subsidizing the lower test costs.

Of course, 23andMe seeks customers’ consent before sharing data. According to their website, 80% of clients agree, as the information is utilized for research by biotech companies. The MIT Technology Review notes that 23andMe has compiled a DNA database comprising 1.2 million individuals, even selling access to this repository to 13 pharmaceutical companies. Genentech reportedly paid around $10 million to analyze genes associated with Parkinson's disease.

“Under the current system, personal genomics companies effectively own your personal genomics data, and you don’t see any benefit at all. We want to eliminate the middleman.” — Dennis Grishin, co-founder of Nebula Genetics — interview in the Guardian

Nebula Genetics is another startup aiming to generate revenue through DNA. Co-founded by George Church, a pioneer in DNA sequencing, the company offers to sequence entire genomes while allowing individuals to retain their data.

According to the Guardian, Nebula plans to enable individuals to rent their genetic information to pharmaceutical companies, with data secured by blockchain encryption. Users would receive compensation in Nebula’s cryptocurrency, with the potential for DNA to yield profits up to 50 times the sequencing cost. Given that sequencing expenses approximate $1,000, this could represent a significant return.

Although these projections are speculative, Nebula derives such estimates from the anticipated earnings generated through lifetime DNA rentals, alongside potential savings on medical expenses from early illness detection via DNA analysis. Nebula intends to monetize by storing DNA and providing the necessary technological infrastructure.

The article also highlights that at least two additional competitors are offering direct payment for access to your DNA.

“Money follows data.” — Barbara Evans, University of Houston Legal Scholar

We are entering an unusual era—one where companies can create living entities that have never existed before and secure patents for them. It is also a time when the fundamental building blocks of human beings may hold the key to solving the mysteries of illness and mortality. Clearly, the implications of these developments could be extraordinarily valuable.

It could also be an epoch where individuals like Eero Mäntyranta and the Kalenjin tribe might gain ownership and profit from insights regarding their specific DNA mutations. While this may sound like something from a science fiction narrative, the groundwork is being laid today. Companies like 23andMe and George Church's initiatives are transforming personal genetic information into business opportunities. Moreover, we may find ourselves in a landscape where technology advances faster than legislation, leading to complex legal disputes.

An age-old adage suggests that someone has “won the genetic lottery.” Perhaps we are on the verge of a new understanding of this concept, especially for those fortunate enough to carry mutations that confer resistance to diseases like cancer. DNA is more than mere science; it represents a burgeoning industry—one that you carry with you and will pass on to your descendants.

Thank you for reading my musings. If you found value in this piece, please share.