EU regulations relating to the ownership of genes are weak when it comes to the ethics of human DNA, nor has the judiciary yet been able to come to terms with bio-ethics, according to a legal medicine specialist.
"This is a grey area of the law," said Mr Asim Sheikh, of University College Dublin, who spoke at a Royal Irish Academy conference on Ethics and the Molecular Life Sciences. "We have no judicial guidance on the ownership of body parts."
The Government will soon have to legislate on bio-ethics regardless, he said. Ireland must produce laws by July 31st to enact EU Directive 98/44/EC which details the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The directive will allow the patenting of biological samples, animals and human genes, he said.
Yet many ethical questions remained to be answered relating to "ownership" of genetic material and how much control should be given to those attempting to raise patents on DNA.
Earlier the conference was addressed by Mrs Noelle Lenoir who chairs the Paris-based European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies. She is also the first female member of the French Conseil d'Etat, similar to Ireland's Council of State.
"Bioethics is based on the idea that there is no real separation between science and politics," she said.
Many "social and moral" issues were raised by the new biological technologies including the quality of life, how and what we eat, universal access to advanced medical treatments, "even the way we make babies", she said.
European polls show most people believe industry, science and politics are inextricably linked, which was why people also believed ethical guidelines were necessary.
"We are living in a new age, the age of biological control," she said. Advances in biotechnology were delivering new medicines, foods and treatments, so there was no surprise that ethical concerns should be raised.
Bio-ethics was not new and was rooted in the culture and traditions of Europe, she said. When patenting was new in the 1800s, it was possible to reject a patent on the grounds that it was "contrary to morality".
Having the sequence of long segments of human DNA was akin to having a car workshop manual, said Prof Stephen Oliver of the University of Manchester. It might give a list of all the parts, but this did not explain the function of any one part.
