So there's no distinction between identical twins?

Genes provide a recipe to create a human, but that interpretation is heavily dependent upon environment (both initial biological as well as how that "man" grew up). So, there definitely is a distinction.

Just watch your rhetoric as it could cause people to throw out your entire argument.

Excuse me? What rhetoric? And exactly how do you throw out what is not an argument, but a statement of fact.

I own the stuff I am made of, because I own myself as a person. The stuff I am made of is an informational pattern bound up in matter. What I own, and what I am, is that pattern. And while matter is organized by that pattern (i.e. after I eat something) I own that matter, too. Before that matter becomes a part of my being, it can be part of someone or something else's form.

If I had an identical twin, then he would own the informational pattern that shapes him. What does it matter if his pattern and my pattern are identical? Haven't you ever owned a CD or a game that someone else also owned a copy of?

This is not some philosophical debate. Its not a debate at all. Its the simple, basic, utter truth of how life bio-mechanically exists on Earth.

>I own the stuff I am made of, because I own myself as a person.

buyers of CD/DVD/iPhones/etc... also thought they "owned". At least they had some idea about their fair use rights. That ideas were severely adjusted by the army of lawyers and DMCA.

Wait a bit and the new "genetic DMCA" will make it clear that you get a "limited use license" for your genetic material and the biomass you're composed of. Any circumvention or modifications will be prohibited, until they licensed from the genetic iTunes or from whatever will take its place. It is really hilarious to imagine your screams about fair rights use for your body and genetic info :)

That's actually a very interesting and scary point. What we have to do now, and is the original point of the article, is to make sure that no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material.

>no one is able to say that we somehow don't have the rights to our own genetic material.

the genetic code is a code executed on biocomputer. You mother and father created the code by merging copies of their own codes (and the IVF clinic may have done some bug fixing). Did the mother and father have the rights to do so, ie. to copy and modify? For example, it is frequent case in the dog breeding that you can have this nice puppy, yet you wouldn't have the rights to breed him, i.e you get a "license to use" and not a license to produce modified copies. It is easy to see that the same logic easily applies to humans as well. Lets say some designer produced a very popular eye color DNA alteration. You bought it for your future child. Would it come with perpetual license, ie. right to pass it to your grandkids or not? (or, God forbid, your child when grown let his/her friends to copy the code for their children :) The answer by Monsanto is clear and is completely in line with legal copyright framework.

You said there's no distinction between the genes and the man. I'm just saying that's incorrect, otherwise there'd be no distinction between identical twins. Their recipe is the same, but the outcome is difference. Hence, there IS a distinction between the man, and the combination of genes that the man has.

I don't disagree that obviously you should have access to all your DNA information, (I doubt anyone on HN disagrees). But it's an argument you're making to the FDA (that you should be allowed unfettered access), because they're considering otherwise.

DNA is not you. There are many more factors that make up you than just DNA. DNA is how to make you. It is the place of the government to make sure that we are not lied to.