Law &. Ethics for Medical Careers 5th Edition by Karen Judson,Carlene Harrison

Exercise 12

Use your critical-thinking skills to answer the questions that follow each of the case studies.
In 1984 John Moore, an Alaskan businessman, was treated at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) for a rare cancer. During his treatment, a doctor and researcher discovered that tissue from Moore's spleen produced a blood protein that encourages the growth of cancer-fighting white blood cells.
Without Moore's knowledge or consent, university scientists created a cell line from his tissue. They obtained a patent on their invention, which was estimated to be worth about $3 billion in potential profits. Moore later learned that his tissue had been used in this way, and he sued UCLA, claiming that only he could own his tissue. The California Supreme Court ruled against Moore in 1990, saying that he had no property right over his own body tissues. This court's decision paved the way for other researchers to patent genes and tissues.
Since Moore's suit, some states have passed laws defining DNA ownership. For example, a 1995 Oregon law declared that a person owned his or her DNA and that of any children. In 2001, however, Oregon legislators reversed the 1995 law, holding that genetic information would no longer be considered private property once it was separated from a person's identity through encryption or anonymous research.
Should scientists or drug companies be allowed to patent genes as they do other discoveries and inventions? Why or why not?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________