Week 9 Post 2-Ownership of Human Tissue and Genetic Information

 The cultivation and use of human cells and tissues is incredibly important to the scientific community as these cells are the reason for many medical treatments and advancements, such as the polio vaccine and cancer treatments. These cells serve as a basis for research on treatments on humans without actually having to use humans and risk potential harm. However, there are many different viewpoints on who should control and have ownership over human cells and how these cells and tissues should be collected. One example of a case about the ownership and rights of cell is the Moore v. University of California case. Moore who had cancer went to a doctor at the University of California, who collected many tissue samples from Moore, telling him that it was necessary for his treatment, but in reality the doctor saw potential economic value in Moore's cells and wanted to collect them for personal reasons. He even convinced Moore to have his spleen removed under the guise that it would help get rid of his cancer. The doctor was able to create a cell line from Moore's cell and without Moore's knowledge patented them with the help of the university, and sold them to companies who used them in research and developed products that made a lot of money. When Moore found out about this he sued the university and the doctor for multiple claims. The first two were claims about lack of informed consent and a breech of fiduciary duty, which says that doctors must release all necessary information to the patient. The court accepted these claims a legitimate because informed consent cannot be given if the patient is unaware something is happening to them and because they saw informing Moore about the uses of his cells fell under the notion of materiality, which is the concerns of a reasonable patient. However Moore also made a third claim, which was that a conversion, which is a type of civil robbery, took place upon his personal interests and property-his cells. Moore said that the use of his cells for profit was an infringement on his property rights over him, however the court disagreed saying that in both legal senses of property he had no right over them. In the more traditional sense of personal property a person must have put labor of some kind into the property, like working to buy a house or making a painting, but Moore did not really put labor into making his cells. In the other sense of of personal property, that something is essential and unique to that person, like their face, Moore's argument also falls flat because everyone could have potentially made the cells he produced. So the court said that there was no protection for this type of property, but they could have potentially expanded the definition so it was protected. They decided against expanding protections because they said that would create an extremely litigious situation for researchers where they would be required to make sure each cell they use was collected properly, which, the court argued, would halt research. Another instance of human cells being used for research without consent is the case of Henrietta Lacks. Henrietta was a poor Black woman in the 1950's who had cervical cancer, and because of her identity she could only get treatment at John Hopkins University. While treating her the doctor took a sample of her cells, which was common practice to do, without her knowledge. Her cells ended up, for an unknown reason being "immortal" meaning that while other cells would die in a few days, hers would live forever and create new cells, which led to the first human cell line being created. This was revolutionary and her cells were spread around the world for a very long time, and they were used to develop so many modern medical treatments, such as IVF and many HIV treatments, along with vaccine research. Henrietta died of her cancer less than a year after she was diagnosed. In the 1970s researchers reached out to Mrs. Lacks' family, who had very little education especially surrounding science, and asked for samples from them. The family, who did not really understand what was going on complied, as they thought they were being tested for cancer. Their cells were then used in research that lead to innovations worth billions of dollars, and they developed a harsh attitude towards people who were interested in their story, understandably. After many years and generations the NIH has created a board that members of the Lack family sit on, and is a pre-requisite to access HeLa cell information. The real ethical problem comes up in the 70s when the family was targeted for more cell collection, and was mislead about the nature of their donation, meaning they could not give informed consent which was standard ethical practice at the time.

    Society's general view on the ownership of genetic information is important to learn when coming to bioethical conclusions because it can give a guide as to what should be made public policy and how researchers should act when conducting research in order to make discoveries in the most ethical way possible. The legal view on ownership of genetic information is important to know because it shows the current requirements for behavior for researchers. CRISPR is connected to this ownership of genetic material, because both of these ethical concerns are about what humans are really comfortable with and what they trust.