Diptych: 'Yin/Yang sienna', by Jacques Deshaies (2002) (detail).

There is much buzz these days about 24-hour, whole-genome genotyping of individuals for under US $1,000. Craig Venter has announced that he will tackle this '$1,000 genome', and some futurists are thinking of how it might be used in medicine1. Although the technology for rapid whole-genome genotyping is not yet developed, the tools for doing so might soon be available2.

Solving the technical problems fortunately gives us time to resolve the ethical, legal and social issues (ELSI) that this endeavour presents before it is ready for 'prime time'. Take the question of ownership of one's DNA, still an unresolved issue in many jurisdictions. Individuals have the right to decide whether tissue that contains their DNA is removed from their body, but few personal legal rights have been established over the genotyping or testing of DNA that is legally acquired or sloughed off a person.

To gain public acceptance of sequencing an individual's whole genome, and the testing that this will make possible, legal protections for consent and privacy are essential. However, at present, only 15 US states explicitly protect the rights of consent to testing, and Canada, Australia and most European countries do not explicitly protect an individual's rights to refuse testing and to have privacy in their test results3.

We also need to make clear rules about when genetic information might or might not be used in job and insurance decisions. To support a ban on genetic discrimination is easy, but there are some legitimate uses of genetic testing in both settings. A more balanced solution is needed, but we have yet to identify what it would be.

Finally, holders of patents on genes and DNA sequences could block rapid sequencing of the whole genome of an individual by making excessive royalty demands or refusing to license those uses4. Changes in the patent system, to allow freer use of gene patents while protecting incentives for innovation, are also needed.

All is not lost, however. Attention to the ethical, legal and social issues raised by the human genome project has identified most of the relevant issues, and this has helped to shape a consensus about how ethically to tackle many issues, including research with stored samples, biobanking, testing minors, setting standards for genetics counselling and the need to rethink patent law.

The prospect of a $1,000 genome is a welcome prod for legal authorities to finish the work that the genomics, medical and bioethics communities have done on ELSI questions. It is time for clear, legal recognition of people's rights to control the acquisition, testing, use and privacy of their DNA. The $1,000 genome has the potential to increase greatly access to the medical pay-offs of genomics. To get there, we will need to get our ethics and law straight as well.