4 ms·

> “It is outrageous that this company would think that they have intellectual rights property to their grandmother’s cells. Why is it they have intellectual rig

> “It is outrageous that this company would think that they have intellectual rights property to their grandmother’s cells. Why is it they have intellectual rights to her cells and can benefit billions of dollars when her family, her flesh and blood, her Black children, get nothing?”

toomuchtodo 5y ago
> Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genepatents/ https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genep... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/frequently-asked-questions.html https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/frequently-as... > In the first case of its kind, the California Supreme Court held in Moore v. Regents of the University of California that individuals do not have an ownership interest in their cells after the cells are removed from their bodies. John Moore sought treatment from UCLA Medical Center (defendant) for hairy-cell leukemia. His attending physician, Dr. David Golde, recommended removal of Moore’s spleen for therapeutic purposes. Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan planned to use Moore’s spleen tissue—which was “of great value in a number of commercial and scientific efforts”—for scientific study, a fact they never disclosed to Moore [5, 6]. > In Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that individuals have no property rights in body tissue and genetic material donated for research. The Greenberg family sued a physician-researcher and hospital after the researcher developed and patented a prenatal genetic test using blood and tissue samples donated by their family and others. The donated genetic material was used in the study of Canavan disease, a rare and fatal genetic disease that occurs most frequently in Ashkenazi Jewish families [8]. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/donors-retain-no-rights-donated-tissue/2009-08 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/donors-retain-n... (Donors Retain No Rights to Donated Tissue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children%27s_Hospital_Research_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children%27...

toomuchtodo 5y ago

> Myriad Genetics, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that human genes cannot be patented in the U.S. because DNA is a "product of nature." The Court decided that because nothing new is created when discovering a gene, there is no intellectual property to protect, so patents cannot be granted. https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genepatents/ https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/testing/genep... https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/frequently-asked-questions.html https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/frequently-as... > In the first case of its kind, the California Supreme Court held in Moore v. Regents of the University of California that individuals do not have an ownership interest in their cells after the cells are removed from their bodies. John Moore sought treatment from UCLA Medical Center (defendant) for hairy-cell leukemia. His attending physician, Dr. David Golde, recommended removal of Moore’s spleen for therapeutic purposes. Golde and UCLA researcher Shirley Quan planned to use Moore’s spleen tissue—which was “of great value in a number of commercial and scientific efforts”—for scientific study, a fact they never disclosed to Moore [5, 6]. > In Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida held that individuals have no property rights in body tissue and genetic material donated for research. The Greenberg family sued a physician-researcher and hospital after the researcher developed and patented a prenatal genetic test using blood and tissue samples donated by their family and others. The donated genetic material was used in the study of Canavan disease, a rare and fatal genetic disease that occurs most frequently in Ashkenazi Jewish families [8]. https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/donors-retain-no-rights-donated-tissue/2009-08 https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/donors-retain-n... (Donors Retain No Rights to Donated Tissue) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_Univer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children%27s_Hospital_Research_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenberg_v._Miami_Children%27...