Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

Whose tissue is it anyway?

Nature Biotechnology volume 23, pages 929–933 (2005)Cite this article

The current legal system fails to provide an equitable balance between the rights of researchers and the rights of donors of biological materials. Could the tax system provide a solution?

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Moore vs. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal.1990), 490.

  2. Chen, I.S., Quan, S.G., & Golde, D.W. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80, 7006–7009 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. in New Developments in Biotechnology: Ownership of Human Tissues and Cells-Special Report, OTA-BA-337 (US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1987) 79–87.

  4. Cairney, R. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 159, 1451 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Greenberg vs. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Inc., 264 F. Supp 2nd1064 (S.D. Fla., 2003).

  6. Merz, J. et al. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70, 965–971 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Laurie, G. Genetic Privacy, a Challenge to Medico-Legal Norms. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  8. Marshal, E. Science 305, 1226 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. UK Biobank. Sample Handling and Storage Subgroup Protocol and Recommendations, version 1.0, 7 July 2004 for comment, section 4.2.6 (UK Biobank, Manchester, UK, 2004). http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/

  10. 18 Am. Jur. 2d Conversion § 1.

  11. Bovenberg, J.A. 1 SCRIPT-ED 4, 591–616 (2004). http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/ahrb/scripted/issue4/bovenberg.asp

    Google Scholar 

  12. Winickoff, D.E. & Winickoff, R.N. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1180–1184 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. US National Research Council. Evaluating Human Genetic Diversity (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1997).

  14. Looney, B. Law Policy Int. Bus. 26, 231–272 (1994).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Petrone, J. US investors rethinking genome project. Baltic Times January 29 (2004). http://www.geenivaramu.ee/index.php?show=article&lang=eng&id=465&pid=3&offset=20(last accessed on June 8, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  16. The Interim Advisory Group on Ethics and Governance. UK Biobank Ethics and Governance Framework Background Document (UK Biobank, Manchester, UK, October 10, 2003). http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/docs/egf-background.doc (last accessed on June 8, 2005).

  17. Porter, G. in Blood and Data, Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases (eds., Arnason, G., Nordal, S. & Arnason, V.) 85–93 (University of Iceland Press and Center for Ethics, Reykjavik, Iceland, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Terry, P.F. in Populations and Genetics (ed., Knoppers, B.M.) 377–393 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, Netherlands, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gitter, D.M. Washington Lee Law Rev. 61, 257–345 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Harrison, C.H. Am. J. Law Med. 28, 77–105 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. UNESCO. Declaration on the Human Genome, Records of the General Conference, 32nd Session, vol. 1 (UNESCO, Geneva, Switzerland, 1997).

  22. Human Genome Organization's Ethics Committee. Statement on Human Genomic Databases, December 2002 (HGO, London, 2002). http://www.hugo-international.org/Statement_on_Human_Genomic_Databases.htm(last accessed on June 8, 2005).

  23. UNESCO. International Declaration on Human Genetic Data, October 16, 2003 (UNESCO, Geneva, Switzerland, 2003).

  24. Human Genome Organization's Ethics Committee. Statement on Benefit Sharing, April 9, 2000 (HUGO, London, UK, 2000). http://www.hugo-international.org/Statement_on_Benefit_Sharing.htm(last accessed on June 8, 2005).

  25. http://www.atcc.org/About/AboutATCC.cfm

  26. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Dec. 10, 1982, U.N. Doc A/CONF.62/122 (1982).

  27. Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act, Pub. L. No. 96-283, 94 Stat. 553 (1980) (codified at 30 U.S.C. §§ 1401–73 (2000)) Section 402and 403.

  28. Mijnbouwwet, section 5.1.1.4., Staatsblad 2002 (542).

  29. Fredrickson, J.K. J. Contemp. Health L. Policy 477, 496–497 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Munzer, S.R. Rutgers L. Rev. 493, 493–568 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Jasper Bovenberg is a lawyer and a research fellow of the Netherlands NWO Genomics Initiative at the University of Leiden Faculty of Law and the Centre for Medical Systems Biology.

Authors
  1. Jasper Bovenberg
    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

Bovenberg, J. Whose tissue is it anyway?. Nat Biotechnol 23, 929–933 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0805-929

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0805-929

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing