Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Commercialization of Human Stem Cells: Ethical and Policy Issues

  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, L. and Nelkin, D. (2001) Body Bazaai. New York: Crown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1972) Gifts and Exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, 343–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, B. (1995) Ethical Issues in Drug Testing, Approval, and Pricing. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, F. (2001) Decision Helps Define the President's Image. New York Times (10 August 2001), A1.

  • Copi, I. (1986) Introduction to Logic, 7th edn New York: MacMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2nd 144 (1980).

  • Eisenberg, R.(1997) Structure and Function in Gene atenting. Nature Genetics 15(2), 125–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, J. (1975) Abortion and the Concept of a Person. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5(2), 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster, F. and Shook, R. (1993) Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gearhart, J. et al. (2001a) US Patent 6,090,622.

  • Gearhart, J. et al. (2001b) US Patent 6,245,566.

  • Geron Web Page (2001) www.geron.com. Accessed: 16 August 2001.

  • Gerson, S. et al. (1997) US Patent 5,591,625.

  • Gold, E. (1997) Body Parts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, L. (2001) Abortion Foes Split over Bush's Plan on Stem Cells. The New York Times (12 August 2001), A1.

  • Greenberger, J. et al. (1998) US Patent 5,766,950.

  • Guenin, L. (1996) Norms for Patents Concerning Human and other Life Forms. Theoretical Medicine 17, 279–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagmann, M. (2000) Protest Leads Europeans to Confess Patent Error. Science 287, 1567–1569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, M. (1999) Biotechnology and Commodification within Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24(3), 267–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller, M. and Eisenberg, R. (1998) Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280, 698–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holden, C. (2001) HHS Inks Cell Deal; NAS Calls for more Lines. Science 293, 1966–1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juengst, E. (1998) Should We Treat the Human Germ-line as a Global Human Resource? In E. Agius and S. Busuttil (Eds.), Germ-line Intervention and Our Responsibilities to Future Generations (pp. 85–102). London: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Juengst, E. and Fossel, M. (2000) The Ethics of ES Cells-now and Forever, Cells Without End. Journal of the American Medical Association 284, 3180–3184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1785 [1953]) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Patton H (trans.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbrell, A. (1997) The Human Body Shop. Washington, DC: Regnery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycan, W. (1987) Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, E. (2000) The Business of Stem Cells. Science 287, 1419–1421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meilaender G. (2001) The Point of a Ban; or, How to Think about Stem Cell Research. Hastings Center Report 31(1), 9–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. and Davis, M. (2000) Intellectual Property. Minneapolis, MN: West Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T. (1986) Who Owns the Body? On the Ethics of Using Human Tissue for Commercial Purposes. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 8(1), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normile, D. (2001) Japan Readies Rules that Allow Research. Science 293, 775.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossori, P. (1999) Common Heritage Arguments Against Patenting Human DNA. In A. Chapman (Ed.), Perspectives on Gene Patenting (pp. 89–108). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radin, M. (1996) Contested Commodities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (1998) The Commodification of Human Reproductive Materials. Journal of Medical Ethics 24, 388–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2001a) DNA Patents and Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Assessing Benefits and Risks. Science and Engineering Ethics 7(1), 29–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2001b) Regulating the Market for Human Eggs. Bioethics 15(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2001c) DNA Patents and Human Dignity. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 29, 152–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. (2001d) Developing Drugs for the Developing World: An Economic, Legal, Moral, and Political Dilemma. Developing World Bioethics 1, 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solter, D. and Gearhart, J. (1999) Putting stem Cells to Work. Science 283, 1468–1470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stolberg, S. (2001a) House Backs Ban on Human Cloning for any Objective. The New York Times (1 August 2001), A1.

  • Stolberg, S. (2001b) Patent Laws May Determine Shape of Stem Cell Research. The New York Times (17 August 2001), A1.

  • Savotos, M. (1996) Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents. Social Philosophy and Policy 13, 113–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson, J. (1998) US Patent 5,843,780.

  • Thomson, J. et al. (1999) ES Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts. Science 282, 1145–1147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titmus, R. (1970) The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen and Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • US Constitution (1787) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

  • Vogel, G. (2000) Stem Cells: New Excitement, Persistent Questions. Science 290, 1672–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, G. (2001) Can Adult Stem Cells Suffice? Science 292, 1820–1822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, N. (2001) Clearer Guidelines Help Britain to Advance Stem Cell Work. The New York Times (14 August 2001), A1.

  • Wilkinson, S. (2000) Commodification Arguments for the Legal Prohibition of Organ Sale. Health Care Analysis 8, 189–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (1999) Human ES-cell Research: Science and Ethics. American Scientist 87 (July' August), 352–361.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Humanities, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, 2S-17 Brody Building, Greenville, NC, 27858-4354, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. The Commercialization of Human Stem Cells: Ethical and Policy Issues. Health Care Analysis 10, 127–154 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016554107663

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016554107663

Search

Navigation