Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Who "owns" cells and tissues?

K Lebacqz1

  • 1klebacqz@mcn.org

Health Care Analysis : HCA : Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy
|January 25, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A time to die?

Biomedical ethics (Tubingen, Germany)·2002
Same author

Stem cells.

The Hastings Center report·1999
Same author

Difficult difference.

Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics : CQ : the international journal of healthcare ethics committees·1998
Same author

Difference or defect? Intersexuality and the politics of difference.

The annual of the Society of Christian Ethics. Society of Christian Ethics (U.S.)·1997
Same author

Humility in health care.

The Journal of medicine and philosophy·1992
Same author

Feminism and bioethics: an overview.

Second opinion (Park Ridge, Ill.)·1991

Arguments against patenting DNA fragments are often unhelpful. Patenting is supported by labor rights and medical inventiveness, but the common good provides a stronger, more flexible justification for both supporting and limiting DNA patents.

Area of Science:

  • Biotechnology Law
  • Intellectual Property
  • Bioethics

Background:

  • Ethical debates surrounding the patenting of biological materials, including cells and tissues, often rely on arguments about the sanctity of life.
  • These arguments are frequently insufficient when addressing the patenting of specific DNA fragments.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically evaluate the ethical and legal justifications for patenting DNA fragments.
  • To explore the implications of different ethical frameworks, such as labor rights and utilitarianism, on intellectual property law in biotechnology.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of existing legal and ethical arguments concerning biological material ownership.
  • Examination of the labor theory of ownership and utilitarian justifications for patents.
Keywords:
Analytical ApproachBiomedical and Behavioral ResearchGenetics and Reproduction

Related Experiment Videos

  • Discussion of the 'common good' as a principle for patent policy.

    • Main Results:

    • Arguments based on the special or sacred nature of the human body are not conducive to patent law concerning DNA.
    • The labor theory of ownership, while having some merit, faces significant critique.
    • Utilitarian arguments supporting DNA patenting for medical inventiveness are more persuasive.
    • The 'common good' emerges as a crucial ethical consideration for patenting DNA.

    Conclusions:

    • Patenting of DNA fragments should be primarily justified and potentially limited by considerations of the common good.
    • This framework allows for a more nuanced approach to intellectual property in biotechnology, balancing innovation with public interest.