David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Health Care Analysis 10 (2):127-154 (2002)
The first stage of the human embryonic stem(ES) cell research debate revolved aroundfundamental questions, such as whether theresearch should be done at all, what types ofresearch may be done, who should do theresearch, and how the research should befunded. Now that some of these questions arebeing answered, we are beginning to see thenext stage of the debate: the battle forproperty rights relating to human ES cells. The reason why property rights will be a keyissue in this debate is simple and easy tounderstand: it costs a great deal of money todo this research, to develop new products, andto implement therapies; and private companies,researchers, and health professionals requirereturns on investments and reimbursements forgoods and services. This paper considersarguments for and against property rightsrelating to ES cells defends the followingpoints: (1) It should be legal to buy and sellES cells and products. (2) It should be legalto patent ES cells, products, and relatedtechnologies. (3) It should not be legal tobuy, sell, or patent human embryos. (4) Patentson ES cells, products, and related technologiesshould not be excessively broad. (5) Patents onES cells, products, and related technologiesshould be granted only when applicants statedefinite, plausible uses for their inventions. (6) There should be a research exemption in EScell patenting to allow academic scientists toconduct research in regenerative medicine. (7)It may be appropriate to take steps to preventcompanies from using patents in ES cells,products, and related technologies only toblock competitors. (8) As the field ofregenerative medicine continues to develop,societies should revisit issues relating toproperty rights on a continuing basis in orderto develop policies and develop regulations tomaximize the social, medical, economic, andscientific benefits of ES cell research andproduct development.
|Keywords||commercialization embryonic stem cells patents property rights slippery slope arguments utilitarianism|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Donna L. Dickenson (2006). The Lady Vanishes: What's Missing From the Stem Cell Debate. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):43-54.
Donna Dickenson & Itziar Alkorta Idiakez (2008). Ova Donation for Stem Cell Research: An International Perspective. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 1 (2):125 - 144.
Robin Mackenzie (2007). Regulating Reprogenetics: Strategic Sacralisation and Semantic Massage. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 15 (4):305-319.
David B. Resnik (2007). Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity. Health Care Analysis 15 (3):211-222.
Matthew Herder (2006). Proliferating Patent Problems with Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research? Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):69-79.
Similar books and articles
A. M. Viens (2009). Morality Provisions in Law Concerning the Commercialization of Human Embryos and Stem Cells. In Aurora Plomer & Paul Torremans (eds.), Embryonic Stem Cell Patents: European Patent Law and Ethics. Oxford University Press
Philip J. Nickel (2008). Ethical Issues in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research. In Kristen Renwick Monroe, Ronald B. Miller & Jerome Tobis (eds.), Fundamentals of the Stem Cell Debate: The Scientific, Religious, Ethical & Political Issues. University of California Press
Fuat S. Oduncu (2003). Stem Cell Research in Germany: Ethics of Healing Vs. Human Dignity. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 6 (1):5-16.
William M. Sage (2010). Will Embryonic Stem Cells Change Health Policy? Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (2):342-351.
John D. Loike Moshe Tendler (2008). Reconstituting a Human Brain in Animals: A Jewish Perspective on Human Sanctity. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 18 (4):pp. 347-367.
Mark T. Brown (2009). Moral Complicity in Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19 (1):pp. 1-22.
Phillip Karpowicz, Cynthia B. Cohen & Derek J. Van der Kooy (2005). Developing Human-Nonhuman Chimeras in Human Stem Cell Research: Ethical Issues and Boundaries. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15 (2):107-134.
Nikolaus Knoepffler (2004). Stem Cell Research: An Ethical Evaluation of Policy Options. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 14 (1):55-74.
O. Snead (2011). The Law and Politics of Embryo Research in America. Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 17 (1):40-52.
S. Matthew Liao, P. J. Goldschmidt & J. Sugarman (2007). Ethical and Policy Issues Relating to Progenitor-Cell-Based Strategies for Prevention of Atherosclerosis. Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (11):643-646.
Rebecca Dresser (2010). Stem Cell Research as Innovation: Expanding the Ethical and Policy Conversation. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 38 (2):332-341.
Michael R. Prieur, Joan Atkinson, Laurie Hardingham, David Hill, Gillian Kernaghan, Debra Miller, Sandy Morton, Mary Rowell, John F. Vallely & Suzanne Wilson (2006). Stem Cell Research in a Catholic Institution: Yes or No? Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 16 (1):73-98.
Demetrio Neri (2011). The Race Toward 'Ethically Universally Acceptable' Human Pluripotent (Embryonic-Like) Stem Cells: Only a Problem of Sources? Bioethics 25 (5):260-266.
Liza Dawson, Alison S. Bateman-House, Dawn Mueller Agnew, Hilary Bok, Dan W. Brock, Aravinda Chakravarti, Mark Greene, Patricia King, Stephen J. O'Brien, David H. Sachs, Kathryn E. Schill, Andrew Siegel & Davor Solter (2003). Safety Issues In Cell-Based Intervention Trials. Fertility and Sterility 80 (5):1077-1085.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads17 ( #209,157 of 1,792,816 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #282,371 of 1,792,816 )
How can I increase my downloads?