This is why property isn't a great metaphor for certain situations[1]. An important aspect that people (incorrectly) attribute to property is exclusivity: When

This is why property isn't a great metaphor for certain situations[1]. An important aspect that people (incorrectly) attribute to property is exclusivity: When I own something, it's mine, and that means it's not anyone else's. A transfer of ownership is a severing of rights. The fact is, for some things (like tissue samples with DNA), it's important to recognize that non-owners can have a stake in is done with something. The originator of a tissue sample cannot entirely severe their connection with that tissue, and that means that the new owner shouldn't be able to claim unrestricted ownership. The legality should recognize ways in which the non-owner can be affected by the owner's interactions with the sample. (Aside: GDPR works by essentially doing the same thing with data. The "Rights of the Data Subject" stipulate that a non-owner of the data is still a stakeholder in that data.) [1] Although, ironically, that actually makes property law well-suited to addressing the situation. In Common Law, the idea of 'ownership' is understood as 'a bundle of rights,' which can be un-bundled. A framework for addressing the situation is to enumerate separable rights for tissue samples, and stipulate different rules for delegating those rights.