Re: Patenting indigenous peoples' cells (was: Wow!)

Dan L. Burk <burkdanl[_at_]shu.edu> wrote:
>
> there would have been no cell line had there been no intervention by
> Dr. Golde, so any unique property that Moore's cells might have had
> would not have been available for use.

Neither would Dr. Golde have been able to perform his manipulations without Moore's cells, as you concede:

> On 7/6/98, Shelly Warwick <swarwick[_at_]sprynet.com> wrote:
> >
> > (or why not just take any available cells)
>
> For the same reason that you wouldn't take "just any available"
> material to construct a building. Some require wood, some steel,
> some rattan. The choice of materials depends on what the builder
> intends to end up with.

But the issue of taking cells for the purpose of manipulation and patenting without informed consent is extremely problematic. For native peoples to react is entirely reasonable, especially given the history of nonconsensual appropriations, and not paranoid or merely the result of outside manipulation, as was implied in a previous post.

> > especially when the cells were removed without informing the
> > individual of the doctor's intent to use the cells for study let
> > alone profit.
>
> This is an entirely different claim, for lack of informed consent,
> and for which the California Supreme Court held Moore had a cause of
> action.

Max Dashu
<maxdashu[_at_]lanminds.com> Received on Wed Jul 08 1998 - 18:36:47 GMT