Health Care Analysis

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 127–154 | Cite as

The Commercialization of Human Stem Cells: Ethical and Policy Issues

  • David B. Resnik


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.

commercialization embryonic stem cells patents property rights slippery slope arguments utilitarianism 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andrews, L. and Nelkin, D. (2001) Body Bazaai. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  2. Arrow, K. (1972) Gifts and Exchanges. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1, 343–362.Google Scholar
  3. Brody, B. (1995) Ethical Issues in Drug Testing, Approval, and Pricing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bruni, F. (2001) Decision Helps Define the President's Image. New York Times (10 August 2001), A1.Google Scholar
  5. Copi, I. (1986) Introduction to Logic, 7th edn New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  6. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 US 303, 100 S. Ct. 2204, 65 L. Ed. 2nd 144 (1980).Google Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, R.(1997) Structure and Function in Gene atenting. Nature Genetics 15(2), 125–130.Google Scholar
  8. English, J. (1975) Abortion and the Concept of a Person. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 5(2), 233–243.Google Scholar
  9. Foster, F. and Shook, R. (1993) Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Gearhart, J. et al. (2001a) US Patent 6,090,622.Google Scholar
  11. Gearhart, J. et al. (2001b) US Patent 6,245,566.Google Scholar
  12. Geron Web Page (2001) Accessed: 16 August 2001.Google Scholar
  13. Gerson, S. et al. (1997) US Patent 5,591,625.Google Scholar
  14. Gold, E. (1997) Body Parts. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goodstein, L. (2001) Abortion Foes Split over Bush's Plan on Stem Cells. The New York Times (12 August 2001), A1.Google Scholar
  16. Greenberger, J. et al. (1998) US Patent 5,766,950.Google Scholar
  17. Guenin, L. (1996) Norms for Patents Concerning Human and other Life Forms. Theoretical Medicine 17, 279–314.Google Scholar
  18. Hagmann, M. (2000) Protest Leads Europeans to Confess Patent Error. Science 287, 1567–1569.Google Scholar
  19. Hanson, M. (1999) Biotechnology and Commodification within Health Care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 24(3), 267–287.Google Scholar
  20. Heller, M. and Eisenberg, R. (1998) Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science 280, 698–701.Google Scholar
  21. Holden, C. (2001) HHS Inks Cell Deal; NAS Calls for more Lines. Science 293, 1966–1968.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Kant, I. (1785 [1953]) Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Patton H (trans.). New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  25. Kimbrell, A. (1997) The Human Body Shop. Washington, DC: Regnery.Google Scholar
  26. Lycan, W. (1987) Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  27. Marshall, E. (2000) The Business of Stem Cells. Science 287, 1419–1421.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Miller, A. and Davis, M. (2000) Intellectual Property. Minneapolis, MN: West Group.Google Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Normile, D. (2001) Japan Readies Rules that Allow Research. Science 293, 775.Google Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Radin, M. (1996) Contested Commodities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Resnik, D. (1998) The Commodification of Human Reproductive Materials. Journal of Medical Ethics 24, 388–293.Google Scholar
  35. Resnik, D. (2001a) DNA Patents and Scientific Discovery and Innovation: Assessing Benefits and Risks. Science and Engineering Ethics 7(1), 29–62.Google Scholar
  36. Resnik, D. (2001b) Regulating the Market for Human Eggs. Bioethics 15(1), 1–26.Google Scholar
  37. Resnik, D. (2001c) DNA Patents and Human Dignity. Journal of Law, Medicine, and Ethics 29, 152–164.Google Scholar
  38. Resnik, D. (2001d) Developing Drugs for the Developing World: An Economic, Legal, Moral, and Political Dilemma. Developing World Bioethics 1, 11–32.Google Scholar
  39. Solter, D. and Gearhart, J. (1999) Putting stem Cells to Work. Science 283, 1468–1470.Google Scholar
  40. Stolberg, S. (2001a) House Backs Ban on Human Cloning for any Objective. The New York Times (1 August 2001), A1.Google Scholar
  41. Stolberg, S. (2001b) Patent Laws May Determine Shape of Stem Cell Research. The New York Times (17 August 2001), A1.Google Scholar
  42. Savotos, M. (1996) Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents. Social Philosophy and Policy 13, 113–144.Google Scholar
  43. Thomson, J. (1998) US Patent 5,843,780.Google Scholar
  44. Thomson, J. et al. (1999) ES Cell Lines Derived from Human Blastocysts. Science 282, 1145–1147.Google Scholar
  45. Titmus, R. (1970) The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  46. US Constitution (1787) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.Google Scholar
  47. Vogel, G. (2000) Stem Cells: New Excitement, Persistent Questions. Science 290, 1672–1674.Google Scholar
  48. Vogel, G. (2001) Can Adult Stem Cells Suffice? Science 292, 1820–1822.Google Scholar
  49. Wade, N. (2001) Clearer Guidelines Help Britain to Advance Stem Cell Work. The New York Times (14 August 2001), A1.Google Scholar
  50. Wilkinson, S. (2000) Commodification Arguments for the Legal Prohibition of Organ Sale. Health Care Analysis 8, 189–201.Google Scholar
  51. Wright, S. (1999) Human ES-cell Research: Science and Ethics. American Scientist 87 (July' August), 352–361.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • David B. Resnik
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical Humanities, Brody School of MedicineEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations