Have you ever wondered what happens to your cells after a medical procedure, like donating blood or having surgery? You might think they are simply discarded, but that’s not always the case. In the United States, a landmark court case, “Moore v. the University of California,” established that once your cells are removed and anonymized, they can be used for research without your consent. Essentially, you lose ownership of your cells once they leave your body.
For the most part, this isn’t a concern since you weren’t planning to use those cells. However, ethical issues arise when these cells are used in ways you might not expect. Consider a case from Sweden in 1962: a woman terminated her pregnancy, and without her knowledge, the fetal tissue was sent to researchers. This tissue eventually became a cell line, which is a group of cells that can reproduce indefinitely from a single genetic source. These cell lines are invaluable for scientific research, allowing scientists to test treatments and develop vaccines, such as those for rabies and rubella.
When the researchers realized the potential of this cell line, they contacted the biological parents for medical history information. The woman was upset upon learning that her cells were used without her consent. Even decades later, she expressed frustration over the lack of permission for the research.
This situation raises questions about the balance between individual rights and the greater good. While the cell line has saved countless lives, it also generated significant revenue. Should the donor receive a share of the profits? In this case, the woman chose to move on, but others argue that using and profiting from their cells without consent is exploitative.
Take the story of Henrietta Lacks, who died of cervical cancer in 1951. Her cells, known as the HeLa cell line, were unique because they continued to reproduce outside her body, a scientific breakthrough. These cells have been instrumental in medical research, yet her family has not benefited financially because the cells were taken during her treatment, making them legally not hers.
While the legal framework allows for the use of anonymized cells in research, ethical questions remain. Are researchers exploiting individuals for profit? Would you be comfortable with your cells being used without your consent? And if they generated profits, would you feel entitled to a share?
These questions challenge us to consider the intersection of ethics, law, and personal rights in scientific research. What are your thoughts on this complex issue?
Engage in a structured debate with your classmates on the topic: “Should individuals retain ownership rights over their cells once they are removed from their bodies?” Prepare arguments for both sides, considering legal, ethical, and scientific perspectives.
Analyze the “Moore v. the University of California” case and other similar cases. Discuss in groups the implications of these cases on current medical research practices and individual rights. Present your findings and propose potential policy changes.
Participate in a role-playing activity where you assume the roles of different stakeholders (e.g., researchers, patients, legal experts, ethicists) in a scenario involving the use of human cells in research. Discuss and negotiate the ethical and legal considerations involved.
Write a research paper reflecting on the ethical dilemmas presented by the use of human cells in research. Consider historical cases like Henrietta Lacks and propose a framework for balancing individual rights with scientific progress.
Attend a workshop where you explore the concepts of informed consent and profit sharing in medical research. Engage in activities that simulate the decision-making process for consent and discuss the potential for profit sharing with donors.
Sure! Here’s a sanitized version of the transcript:
—
Okay, think of the last time you gave blood or had surgery, like having your tonsils or appendix removed. You know some of what happened to those tissues – the blood was tested, the tissue was biopsied, and perhaps you received treatment. But what happened next? What did the hospital, doctors, or scientists do with your cells?
If you think that material was destroyed, you might be right, but you might be wrong. In the United States, the 1990 court case “Moore v. the University of California” decided that as long as your tissue is anonymized, meaning your name and identification are no longer associated with it, it can be used in research and science without your consent. Once your cells are removed from your body, you no longer own them or have any say in what happens to them.
Most of the time, this is not a big deal; you weren’t using those cells anyway. But in some situations, this ethical issue becomes more complicated. Here’s one example: In Sweden, 1962, a married mother of several children made the decision to end her pregnancy. After the procedure, without informing the woman or obtaining her consent, the doctors sent the fetal tissue to researchers. It changed hands several times and underwent various procedures until the fetal lung tissue was turned into a cell line, which is a group of reproducing cells from a single genetic source.
Cell lines allow researchers to test the effects of different chemicals or treatments on cells while controlling for genetic variation. This cell line has been used in labs to successfully develop vaccines, including a rabies vaccine and the rubella vaccine, ever since. Once the researchers realized how useful the cell line could be, they contacted the biological parents to obtain their medical history to ensure the cells were healthy. When the woman learned what had happened to the fetus, she was understandably upset that the cells had been used and experimented upon without her consent.
Even in 2013, 51 years after the fetal cells were first obtained, she expressed her frustration about the lack of permission for the research. Ethically, many people argue that saving hundreds of millions of lives is more important than what one woman wants regarding cells she chose to remove. But what about the significant revenue generated by those vaccines? Without the cells, there’d be no vaccine, but there’d also be no profit. So does the donor deserve a share of the profits?
In this case, the woman just wanted to put the ordeal behind her, but in other cases, patients and their families argue that by using and selling their cells for profit without their consent, researchers are taking advantage of them. Henrietta Lacks, for example, died of cervical cancer in 1951, leaving behind five children and a tissue sample that may or may not have been removed without her consent. This tissue was remarkable. When scientists cultured the cells, they continued to reproduce outside of Henrietta’s body – something scientists had never done before. They became the HeLa cell line, and today, HeLa products can sell for significant amounts.
However, because the tissue used to create HeLa cells was removed during her medical treatment, legally, they no longer belong to her or her family. So her relatives cannot claim any of those profits. Few would argue that using these cells to develop new treatments or medicines and save millions of lives is a bad thing. But the ethical concerns are valid: have researchers taken advantage of vulnerable individuals for profit? Legally, this is allowed, but is it really ethical? Would you want your cells used for science without your consent? And if they generated significant profits, would you feel entitled to some of that money?
As always, let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.
—
This version maintains the core content while removing specific names and sensitive details.
Cells – The basic structural, functional, and biological units of all living organisms, often referred to as the “building blocks of life.” – In biology, understanding how cells communicate with each other is crucial for developing new medical treatments.
Ethics – A set of moral principles that govern the conduct of individuals and organizations, especially in research and medical practices. – The ethics of genetic modification in humans is a topic of intense debate among biologists and ethicists.
Consent – Permission granted by a patient or participant with full knowledge of the possible risks and benefits, often required in medical and research settings. – Obtaining informed consent is a fundamental ethical requirement in conducting clinical trials.
Research – The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions, often involving scientific methods. – The university’s biology department is renowned for its groundbreaking research in cellular regeneration.
Profit – The financial gain obtained from a business activity, which can raise ethical concerns when prioritized over patient welfare in medical contexts. – The ethical implications of profit-driven pharmaceutical research are a major concern in medical ethics discussions.
Ownership – The legal right to possess, use, and manage a particular entity, which in biology can relate to genetic material or data. – The question of ownership of genetic information is a complex issue in the field of bioethics.
Tissue – A group of cells that work together to perform a specific function in an organism, essential in medical and biological studies. – Advances in tissue engineering have the potential to revolutionize regenerative medicine.
Rights – Legal, social, or ethical principles of freedom or entitlement, particularly relevant in discussions about patient autonomy and bioethics. – Patients’ rights to privacy and confidentiality are paramount in medical research ethics.
Medical – Relating to the science or practice of medicine, encompassing diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. – Medical ethics requires that healthcare providers prioritize patient welfare above all else.
Biology – The scientific study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, and distribution. – Biology students often explore the ethical implications of biotechnological advancements.
