Arguments about ownership and property rights arouse strong feelings in most, and ownership and property rights in human bodies or elements thereof are particularly controversial. Who Owns You? The Corporate Gold Rush to Patent Your Genes taps into this controversy.

Since the publication of the book, the issue of human gene patenting has once again been particularly high profile. In particular, patents held by Myriad Genetics relating to breast cancer genetic testing are the subject of ongoing litigation in the USA. In addition, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health and Society's ‘Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests’ made controversial recommendations to address what it considered to be the negative impact of gene patents on patient care. The issue of gene patenting continues to be relevant in popular press and in law; this book therefore remains timely.

The author assesses gene patenting from a philosophical perspective and sets out to reconsider whether human genes should be patentable, by reference to the ontology of DNA. He seeks to reappraise the science of the relations between the biochemistry of the genome and how this ‘relates to the social object we call a person’. He takes an openly genetic essentialist, natural law position.

The book attempts to criticize the existing legal position of gene patenting. However, in so doing, it fails to accurately represent the existing legal position. On many occasions, the author glosses over important and relevant patent law distinctions. The author claims that a patent on a human gene leads to ownership rights in relation to the gene in the human body. Such a claim is demonstrably false. Furthermore, the author claims that a patent means that you cannot make the subject matter of the invention without paying royalties. Again, this is incorrect; you may be under an obligation to license the invention if you cannot avail yourself of a defence to infringement, but royalties are not a necessary part of every licence. Such lack of precision in description of patent law is a major failing in a book that criticizes the patenting of genes. Whatever the other strengths of the book, these fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of a patent, and the rights it gives its owner, go to the very core of the book. Because the author throughout the book makes claims such as that gene patents turn all people into patent violators by reproduction – a statement that is fundamentally flawed as a matter of law – the other arguments in his book lose much force, which is a shame, as there are other aspects of the author’s discussions that are interesting and relevant to the debates in this area.

The book is very much focused on the law in the USA. Although at times the situation in Europe is mentioned briefly, some reference to the differences in aspects of patent law in Europe, such as the prohibition on the patenting of discoveries as such, would have been helpful, and would have broadened the appeal of the book.

This book is a useful exposition of the difficulties that patents on human genes give rise to. Its focus on philosophical considerations adds depth to the debate, and it takes a novel perspective. However, the limitations that arise from the author’s approach weaken the force of the arguments. Much current commentary of gene patenting proposes solutions within the existing model of patent law. A book that proposes that the model should be abolished should promote useful debate in the field.