**Individuals should not own their DNA but should have input on and hopefully control over how it's used.** - DNA occurs naturally and cannot be subject to manipulation outside the confines of a laboratory. It makes sense to me to consider this reason enough to not invoke property rights on DNA unless it's been altered in a lab setting. A [2013 Supreme Court ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf) decided in this way by invalidating a claim for patents over naturally occurring qualities of DNA. - Having control over how one's DNA is used would be nice, in my opinion. DNA banks can share DNA profiles with law enforcement, which can be worrisome, especially for some historically target populations. But DNA databases can also allow you to share your DNA for research on diseases or other medical issues, which would be great by me. - For some, the opposite may be true. So allowing people to choose which aspects of DNA use they're open to, if any, makes sense to me.

**DNA shouldn't be 'owned' by anyone but we should have control over how any information about our own DNA is used** - DNA shouldn't be ['owned'](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229044) by anyone, ownership is the wrong word as [it commodifies DNA](https://www.jstor.org/stable/223423) - However all information about an individuals DNA should be controlled by the individual, and they should have to consent for their DNA to be used in any studies etc... and they should be informed about how exactly their DNA is being used - They must give [informed consent](https://jme.bmj.com/content/40/7/435), so they must be educated about the value that the use of the DNA is and the [pros and cons](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177158)