Have you ever stopped to consider what happens to the blood, biopsy or similar sample you give in a hospital setting, or even in your doctor's surgery? In particular, have you ever stopped to ask: do I still own the sample? Probably, like most people, you would dismiss the question; you gave the sample for a diagnostic test and, your diagnosis is the extent of your interest in the sample's fate per sae. But how would your view change if, on closer examination of the consent form, your doctor had assumed all rights to your sample? Add to this the real possibility of the sample being added to a tissue bank at the hospital where you received treatment. Then assume that a researcher extracts part of your DNA from the sample, only to find that is has a valuable medical application; they earn millions in patent royalties, while you the patient get nothing directly in return. Judicial statements about the sanctity of the body, along with the insistence from most jurists that it may not be classified as property, suggest that the researcher does not own the tissue upon which they build their economic gain, but does this broad statement of principle meet the modern realities of gene science and commerce? While aiming to acknowledge and balance public and private interests, my principal objective with this thesis is to argue for an individual's property rights in their body.

This commissioned report considers the extent to which the creation of new property rights in the environment, such as water rights and biodiversity protection interests, can prejudice other private and public interests. it highlights 'second order' effects upon the Torrens title system, constitutional issues and associated public administration concerns.

Environmental property interests will inevitably be fundamental components of any 'environmental economy', and as such their creation is an important area of policy innovation. A key argument in favour of property approaches to environmental protection and restoration is the expectation that a market/property rights approach can achieve environmental goals efficiently, provide new sources of funds, and allow industry to find cost-effective ways of reducing environmental harms. It is also argued that strongly defined private property rights-based approaches minimise the risk of the potential 'tragedy of the commons'. Exclusive, secure and transferable property rights (as far as practicable) arguably ensure the resource ends up being put to the highest value use. However, the proliferation of environmental market instruments and incentive programmes has the potential to create legal complexities for which our existing property governance system may be insufficiently prepared. We are rapidly approaching a time when this propagation may in itself cause significant governance and economic problems. These include the risk of misallocation and over-payment for conservation and restoration of environments through an excess of entrepreneurial zeal meeting an insufficiency of governance capacity, and undermining of the key features of the Torrens system for tracking legal interests in real property. This paper argues both for the creation of new tradeable fractions of the environment, and the integration of these instruments into a streamlined and simple legal and institutional structure. We believe this is not a matter of trading off between the proliferation of interests and instruments, and complexity. We also believe that there is unfulfilled opportunity for public and philanthropic investment in environmental property resources. The challenge for property law in the twenty first century that we identify is one of facilitating entrepreneurship for the environment by unbundling, whilst at the same time ensuring that this process does not result in excessive transaction costs arising from poor institutional coordination.

Soil management exists at the intersection between natural systems and human systems. Property rights are an important element in the transactions between man and the land. Soil health relies on property rights regimes that encourage the owner of the property right (individual or communal) to achieve their private goals, in ways that are sustainable. In this entry, the linkages between property, society, and soil health and some myths about property rights are explored.