Rapid developments in biotechnology have brought questions regarding ownership of human genetic material to the forefront of the public conscience. This article aims to determine the current approach of Australian and United Kingdom courts to property disputes regarding human biological material and adjudicate its relevance in the context of human deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ownership. Following initial exploration of the question of whether DNA ought to be considered an object of property, it argues that the dominant approach established by the landmark decision of Doodeward v Spence (1908) 6 CLR 406 is weaker than the newer "guided discretion" basis in the DNA context. It concludes this latter approach is far better equipped to respond to key policy concerns associated with recognising property rights in DNA.
Keywords: biotechnology; genetics; health; law; medical ethics; policy; property; research.