Moore A D
Wright State University
Bioethics. 2000 Apr;14(2):97-119. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00184.
In this article I argue that the proper subjects of intangible property claims include medical records, genetic profiles, and gene enhancement techniques. Coupled with a right to privacy these intangible property rights allow individuals a zone of control that will, in most cases, justifiably exclude governmental or societal invasions into private domains. I argue that the threshold for overriding privacy rights and intangible property rights is higher, in relation to genetic enhancement techniques and sensitive personal information, than is commonly suggested. Once the bar is raised, so-to-speak, the burden of overriding it is formidable. Thus many policy decisions that have been recently proposed or enacted--citywide audio and video surveillance, law enforcement DNA sweeps, genetic profiling, national bans on genetic testing and enhancement of humans, to name a few--will have to be backed by very strong arguments.
在本文中，我认为无形财产权主张的适当主体包括医疗记录、基因档案和基因增强技术。这些无形财产权与隐私权相结合，赋予个人一个控制区域，在大多数情况下，这一区域将合理地排除政府或社会对私人领域的侵犯。我认为，相对于基因增强技术和敏感个人信息而言，推翻隐私权和无形财产权的门槛比通常认为的要高。可以说，一旦门槛提高，推翻它的负担就极为艰巨。因此，最近提出或颁布的许多政策决定——全市范围的音频和视频监控、执法部门的DNA抽检、基因档案、全国范围内禁止基因检测和人类增强等等——都必须有非常有力的论据支持。
