Intellectual property and the ethical/legal status of human DNA: The (ir)relevance of context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been much discussion in recent years about the ethical and legal status of human DNA. This topic is of great relevance and importance to Aboriginal communities because the question of who has the right of access to and control over the DNA of individual persons, or of DNA extracted from human remains, could have implications for an entire community. In another context an individual’s decision to contribute a blood sample for health research could reveal much about the health status of other members of the community. Who has the right to control access to DNA or a community’s narrative of its origins? While some have argued that human DNA should be considered cultural property in order to ensure appropriate control of genetic information, we question the wisdom of this approach. Although we acknowledge that the differing contexts in which DNA is extracted and utilised could require unique approaches in some circumstances, we argue that emphasis should be primarily on the nature of the relationships established and maintained between researchers and descendant communities and only secondarily on the unique status of the DNA itself.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.102 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.181 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".