Greenberg W, Kamin D
Department of Health Services Management and Policy, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052.
Soc Sci Med. 1993 Apr;36(8):1071-6. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90125-n.
The increasing potential for commercial applications in biotechnology has given rise to new legal and ethical questions with regard to ownership of human tissue. As the potential value of human cells and tissue has risen, so have donors' calls for a share in the profits. However, in a recent California ruling (John Moore vs the Regents of the University of California), the court once again held to its traditional position that individuals do not hold property rights in their own tissue and cells. We will show that, in the rare case where tissue value may be determined prospectively, a one-time payment (and, hence granting a property right) is efficient. Moore is such a case. In general, however, the transactions costs of granting full property rights to donors of tissue and cells outweigh the benefits of such a change in policy.
生物技术商业应用潜力的不断增加引发了有关人体组织所有权的新的法律和伦理问题。随着人体细胞和组织潜在价值的提升，捐赠者要求分享利润的呼声也越来越高。然而，在加利福尼亚州最近的一项裁决（约翰·摩尔诉加利福尼亚大学董事会）中，法院再次坚持其传统立场，即个人对自己的组织和细胞不拥有财产权。我们将表明，在极少数情况下，如果组织价值可以预先确定，一次性付款（从而授予财产权）是有效的。摩尔案就是这样一个例子。然而，一般来说，赋予组织和细胞捐赠者完全财产权的交易成本超过了这种政策变化带来的好处。
