+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law



Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law



Stanford Law Review 63(6): 1377-1402



Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as "me"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 1 workday: $29.90)

Accession: 056942883

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 21774193


Related references

Intellectual property. Enhanced: intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 310(5746): 239-240, 2005

Intellectual property rights and detached human body parts. Journal of Medical Ethics 40(1): 27-32, 2014

Public healthoriented intellectual property and trade policies in Africa and the regional mechanism under Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights amendment. Public Health 173: 1-4, 2019

China's intellectual property protection strength and its evaluation - based on the accession to TRIPS Agreement (Agreement On Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). R&d Management 45(4): 397-410, 2015

Intellectual property. Plants and intellectual property: an international appraisal. Science 306(5700): 1295-1297, 2004

Property claims in genetically and non-genetically modified crops intellectual property rights vs brand property rights in postindustrial knowledge societies. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 8(1): 14, 2009

The determining factors of land prices, the property price picture and the effects of state intervention with appropriate property tax laws on the property market. 1985

The Care and Feeding of Intellectual Property: How much legal protection of "property rights" in ideas is desirable?. Science 148(3671): 739-743, 1965

Intellectual Property of Agriculture Sciences Academy of Russia FEDERATION (RASHN) AND APPLICATION OF THE PROPERTY. Ekonomika sel'skokhozyaistvennykh i pererabatyvayushchikh predpriyatii 2009(2): 23-27, 2009

The Enclosures of the Seeds and Their Construction in Appropriable PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM. SOME REFLECTIONS OF THE ARGENTINIAN CASE. Saberes 10(2): 107-127, 2018

Responsibility and intellectual property in synthetic biology: A proposal for using Responsible Research and Innovation as a basic framework for intellectual property decisions in synthetic biology. Embo Reports 16(9): 1055-1059, 2015

Part 2: Farmers, landraces and property rights: challenges to allocating sui generis intellectual property rights to communities over their varieties. Rights to plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge: basic issues and perspectives: 173-202, 2006

From intellectual property to commercial property. Bulletin du Cancer 92(4): 297-298, 2005

Intellectual Property Rights III Global Genetic Resources: Access and Property Rights Workshop. Environmental Conservation 24: 5, 1997

The anti-intellectual effects of intellectual property. Current Opinion in Chemical Biology 10(4): 380-383, 2006