Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T01:52:48.743Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Mary R. Anderlik  and
Mark A. Rothstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In financial disputes involving research, the parties are traditionally individual researchers and their institutions, biotech and pharmaceutical companies, and other entities engaged in the commercial development of biomedical research. Occasionally, research subjects claim that researchers have misled them or misappropriated their biological materials to derive financial gain. The best known example is the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California, decided in 1990.

With new developments in genomics, large-scale repositories of tissue and other biological specimens are increasingly important. Biobanks have been established by various researchers, commercial entities, health-care institutions, and even entire countries. Individuals who contribute specimens almost always retain no commercial interest in any resulting research and language to that effect is now customarily included in informed consent documents signed at the time the specimen is given. Suppose, however, that the research subjects actually collect the specimens themselves, recruit the researcher, and provide financial support for the research.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , Fall 2003 , pp. 450 - 454
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).Google Scholar
According to a case study prepared by the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics, a related non-profit organization, Dor Yeshorim, provided about six thousand stored blood samples. The case study is available at <http://www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/programs/benefit/canavanB.shtml> (last visited September 8, 2003).+(last+visited+September+8,+2003).>Google Scholar
Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Inc., No. 02–22244-CIV-MORENO (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2003) (Slip op. at 3) [hereinafter “Order”].Google Scholar
The patent on the gene responsible for Tay-Sachs is held by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. For more on the “Tay-Sachs model” and its relation to the Canavan case, see Palmer, L.I., “Disease Management and Liability in the Human Genome Era,” Villanova Law Review, 47 (2002): 1–35, at 12–13.Google Scholar
Order at 7.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 8.Google Scholar
Id. at 10.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Under Florida law: (1) a misrepresentation of material fact or suppression of the truth; (2) knowledge of the representor of the misrepresentation, or representation without knowledge of truth or falsity, or where the representor ought to have known of the falsity; (3) an intention to induce another to act on it; and (4) resulting injury to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the representation. Order at 14.Google Scholar
Order at 17.Google Scholar
Id. at 18.Google Scholar
Id. at 19.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 13.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment §1.1.1 cmt. b (Discussion Draft, March 31, 2000)Google Scholar
Id. at § 1.1.2 cmt. f.Google Scholar
Id. at §2.2.11.Google Scholar
Id. at §2.2.11 cmt. e.Google Scholar
374 S.E.2d 328 (Ga. App. 1988).Google Scholar
Restatement (Third) of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment § 2.2.11 reporter's note e (Discussion Draft, March 31, 2000).Google Scholar
Hawes, 374 S.E.2d at 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson v. Lane, 566 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 892.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Stock v. Augsburg College, 2002 Minn. App. LEXIS 421 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).Google Scholar
Id. at 14.Google Scholar