Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x5gtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-02T19:20:15.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Institutional Policy on the Right to Benefit from the Commercialization of Human Biological Material

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 April 2021

Ernest D. Prentice ,
John C. Wiltse ,
John G. Sharp  and
Dean L. Antonson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The marriage of academic research laboratories to the biotechnology industry has raised some very complex ethical and legal issues regarding commercialization of human body parts, products and derivatives thereof. Current statutes prohibit the sale of one's body or bodily organs although people may legally sell their blood or semen and are generally encouraged to donate certain body parts for transplantation or research both in life and death. No existing legislation, however, clearly addresses ownership rights with respect to human cells and tissues used in research, Commercialization of human biological material, either by the donor or by the recipient, e.g., researcher and/ or pharmaceutical company, is an uncharted area of the law.

The question of proprietary rights to one's own cells and tissues did not arise until the biotechnology industry rapidly expanded in the 1980s. Now, human organs, tissues and cells are used in research that may lead to the development of products with tremendous commercial value.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 18 , Issue 1-2 , Summer 1990 , pp. 162 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annas, G.J., “Whose Waste Is It Anyway? The Case of John Moore.” Hastings Center Report 1988, 18 (5): 37–39.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. New Developments in Biotechnology: Ownership of Human Tissues and Cells. Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1987, p 7.Google Scholar
Annas, G.J., “Who's Afraid of the Human Genome?” Hastings Center Report 1989, 19 (4): 19–21; Dickinson, D., “Watson Floats Plan to Carve up the Genome.” Science 1989, 244:521; “Who Owns the Human Genome?” Research News. Science 1987, 237: 358–361.Google Scholar
Sun, M., “Scientists Settle Cell Line Dispute.” Science 1983, 220: 393–394: Royston, I., “Cell Lines From Human Patients: Who Owns Them? A Case Report.” Clinical Research 1985, 33: 442–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culliton, B.J., “Patient Sues UCLA Over Patent on Cell Line.” Science 1984, 225: 1458; Culliton, B.J., “Mo Cell Case Has Its First Court Hearing.” Science 1984, 226: 813–814; Stone, J., “Cells for Sale.” Discover 1988, 9 (8): 33–39; Annas, supra note 1.Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 202 Cal. App. 3d. 1230, 249 Cal. Rptr. 494, 47 Educ.L.Rep. (West) 1031 (1988).Google Scholar
249 Cal. Rptr. at 498.Google Scholar
Id. at 516, Appendix A. (Copy of the Mo cell line patent.)Google Scholar
Id. at 501.Google Scholar
Id. at 531–532. Appendix B. (Copy of the consent form denying the University of California commercial rights.)Google Scholar
Moore v. Regents of the University of California. Biotechnology Law Report 1984, (November): 242–246. The initial complaint filed by Moore's attorney is reproduced in this issue. The complaint was later amended three times.Google Scholar
249 Cal. Rptr. at 499.Google Scholar
Id. at 503.Google Scholar
Id. at 504.Google Scholar
Venner v. State. 30 Md. App. 599, 354 A.2d 483 (1976), aff'd. 279 Md. 47, 367 A.2d 949, cert. denied, 431 U.S. 932(1977).Google Scholar
354 A.2d at 485–487.Google Scholar
Id. at 498, footnote omitted.Google Scholar
Bouvia v. Superior Court, 179 Cal. App. 3d 1127, 225 Cal. Rptr. 297 (1986).Google Scholar
179 Cal. App. 3d at 1137.Google Scholar
249 Cal. Rptr. 506.Google Scholar
Id. at 533.Google Scholar
Id. at 535.Google Scholar
Id. at 536.Google Scholar
Id. at 537.Google Scholar
Id. at 538–540.Google Scholar
Id. at 538.Google Scholar
Cal. Health and Safety Code 24170–24179.5 (West 1984).Google Scholar
252 Cal. Rptr. 816, 763 P.2d 479, 49 Educ.L.Rep. (West) 1246 (1988).Google Scholar
354 A.2d at 498–499.Google Scholar
8A U.L.A. 15.Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. 2974eGoogle Scholar
42 U.S.C. 289.Google Scholar
46 Fed. Reg. 8366–8391 (Monday, January 26, 1981). Codified at 45 C.F.R. Part 46 (1988).Google Scholar
Murray, T.H., “Who Owns the Body? On the Ethics of Using Human Tissue for Commercial Purposes.” IRB: A Review of Human Subject Research 1986, 8 (1) 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bermant, G., Brown, P. and Dworkin, G., “Of Morals, Markets and Medicine.” Hastings Center Report 1975, 5 (1): 14–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calabresi, G., Ideals, Beliefs, Attitudes and the Law: Private Law Perspectives on a Public Law Problem. Syracuse, Syracuse University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Levine, R.J., “Research that Could Yield Marketable Products from Human Materials: The Problem of Informed Consent.” IRB: A Review of Human Subject Research 1986, 8 (1): 6–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar