Ownership Of Biological Materials Research Articles

The Politics of Expertise in Genomics Policy and Law

Genomics and biotechnology have generated controversy for decades, about the moral limits of tinkering with and commodifying life, the boundary between nature and technology, the respectful treatment of research participants, and the proper evaluation of emerging technologies. Socio-legal and science and technology studies scholars have demonstrated how the resolution of these questions has serious implications for both science and the law, including the appropriate conduct and direction of scientific research and the construction of legal categories and rights. This article demonstrates that these conflicts also have profound impacts on the politics of science and technology, and particularly approaches to relevant knowledge and expertise. Humanities, social scientific, legal, and lay knowledge asserted themselves through the establishment of human genetics research and battles over the ownership of biological materials and data. However, US political culture—which favors technical and market knowledge—constrained their authority. Cross-national comparison highlights this finding, as other jurisdictions have been more inclusive in their approaches to science and technology governance.

The legacy of Henrietta Lacks

Many developments in biology and biotechnology have relied on the HeLa cell line, originally derived in 1951 from a Black cancer patient without her knowledge. This origin became generally known at the turn of the century, and the patient's descendants have sought and obtained some recognition and some control but little compensation. They have now retained two famous attorneys to sue a biotech firm for very extensive damages, with more legal action planned against other companies. This may have important repercussions for the biotech industry, and raises complex issues regarding ownership of biological material and compensation to patients from whom these materials have been obtained.

Ethics of Biological Sampling Research with Aboriginal Communities in Canada

<p><strong>BACKGROUND:</strong> The objective of this paper is to identify key ethical issues associated with biological sampling in Aboriginal populations in Canada and to recommend approaches that can be taken to address these issues.</p><p><strong>METHODS:</strong> Our work included the review of notable biological sampling cases and issues. We examined several significant cases (Nuu-chah-nult people of British Columbia, Hagahai peoples of Papua New Guinea and the Havasupai tribe of Arizona) on the inappropriate use of biological samples and secondary research in Aboriginal populations by researchers.</p><p><strong>RESULTS:</strong> Considerations for biological sampling in Aboriginal communities with a focus on community-based participatory research involving Aboriginal communities and partners are discussed. Recommendations are provided on issues of researcher reflexivity, ethical considerations, establishing authentic research relationships, ownership of biological material and the use of community-based participatory research involving Aboriginal communities.</p><p><strong>CONCLUSIONS:</strong> Despite specific guidelines for Aboriginal research, there remains a need for biological sampling protocols in Aboriginal communities. This will help protect Aboriginal communities from unethical use of their biological materials while advancing biomedical research that could improve health outcomes.</p>

Why We Are Not Allowed to Sell That Which We Are Encouraged to Donate

The overall aim of this thesis is to show how some ideas in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics can be interpreted and used as a productive way to approach a number of pressing issues in bioethics. Articles I-II introduce, and endorse, a social constructivist perspective on rights (as opposed to the more traditional natural rights idea). It is investigated if the existence of property-like rights to biological material would include the moral right to commodification and even commercialisation. Articles III-V discuss similar questions and more specifically champion the application of an Aristotelian virtue ethics perspective. The articles are preceded by an introductory essay on some of the central themes in the Nicomachean Ethics. This section also includes a very brief account of what the connection between virtue ethics and a theory of social construction, including rights, could look like. The thesis seeks to show that if read somewhat creatively many of the ideas in the Nicomachean Ethics make for a highly useful approach to modern moral problems. It should be noted, however, that this thesis in no way claims to be an exegetic, or a complete, study of the Nicomachean Ethics. Article I deals with ownership of biological material from a philosophical, as opposed to a legal, perspective. It is argued that a strand in liberal political theory that treats property relations as socially constructed bundles of rights, as developed by e.g. Felix Cohen and Tony Honore, is well suited for discussions on ownership of biological material. Article II investigates which differences in biological material might motivate differences in treatment and ownership rights. The article draws on the social constructivist theory of ownership which was developed in Article I. Article III employs virtue ethics to explain why it is morally permissible to donate but not to sell organs such as kidneys. It is suggested that the former action will bring the agent closer to a state of human flourishing. Article IV argues that virtues like philia, justice, beneficence and generosity — traditionally all seen as other-regarding — contain strong self-regarding aspects. The central claim is that these self-regarding aspects of the other-regarding virtues are necessary components of complete virtue and thus that the fully virtuous agent has to act virtuously both in her dealings with herself and others. Article V applies the ideas that were developed in Article IV to the case of living organ donations to next of kin. It is proposed that such an act, although noble and fine, is supererogatory, rather than obligatory, as the donor is morally entitled to be partial to herself. This argument is made against the backdrop of a discussion on some Aristotelian ideas on philia and partiality.

Patents for human genes, ownership of biological materials and other issues in patent law

Problems arising in respect of patent applications for genes, patenting the human genome, and the ownership of human body parts are outlined and discussed.