Ownership Rights in Research Biobanks: Do We Need a New Kind of ‘Biological Property’?

  • Paula Lobato de Faria


This chapter first revisits the classical ongoing legal debate around ownership rights in human biological material, based on the two opposite perspectives – one that defends an absolute non-patrimonial view, denying the possibility of the existence of a property right in this field and the other that defends the existence of a property right over human bodily material and considers that denying participants in scientific research property right over their biological material may be a source of unfairness to them. Second, it analyses the consequences of the application of classical property rights to the biological material, such as the Portuguese Law does, advancing several arguments from in support of the conclusion that classical property rights do not adjust to the juridical characteristics of human biological material and its use in biobanks for research. The chapter ends up, in a third part, with a draft proposal of a new juridical construction for contemporary law, within property rights, that is, a new concept of ‘biological property’, which should be shaped by a balanced respect for both individual and scientific/society interests and a specific legal framework within property rights law that could reflect the norms of biolaw already applying in our societies to human biological material (e.g. principle of non-commercialisation and principle of informed consent). Because of its novelty and complexity the idea of a ‘biological property’ presented in this chapter is in need of further development. Only an international normative framework would be adequate to create and determine the juridical background of a new kind of property adjustable to human biological material and its significance in modern societies.


Biological Material Legal Framework Classical Property Body Product Draft Proposal 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annas GJ (2004) American Bioethics – Crossing Human Rights and Health Law Boundaries. Oxford University Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg K (2001) The ethics of benefit sharing. Clinical Genetics 59:240–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bovenberg JA (2006) Property Rights in Blood, Genes and Data – Naturally Yours? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cambon-Thomsen A (2002) Ethical aspects in different kinds of biobanks used for genomics in Europe. Presentation at the “Workshop on Biobanks – Practical, Ethical and Legal Aspects,” Sept. 12–13, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  5. Catalona WJ (2005) Letter to the editor. Journal of American Medical Association 293:1326Google Scholar
  6. Davoll et al. Vs. Brown (1845)
  7. European Commission (2001) Survey on opinions from National Ethics Committees or similar bodies, public debates and national legislation in relation to biobanks. Quality of Life Programme, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission (2004) Directive 2004/23/EC, Directive on setting standards of quality and safety for the donation, procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and cells. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (1998) Opinion on the ethical aspects of human tissue banking. Report no. 11 on Human Tissue BanksGoogle Scholar
  10. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (2000) Citizens rights and new technologies: A European challenge. Report on the Charter of Fundamental Rights related to technological innovationsas requested by the President of the European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  11. European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (1998) Opinion on the ethical aspects of human tissue banking. Report n. 11Google Scholar
  12. Faria P (1999) Données Génétiques Informatisées – un défi au droit à la confidentialité des données personnelles de santé. Edn du Septentrion, Villeneuve d’AscqGoogle Scholar
  13. Faria P, Campos A (2001a) Banking of genetic material and data in Europe: Legal, Ethical and Economical Issues. Portuguese Ethical-Legal Contextual Report (for the EUROGENBANK consortium). National School of Public Health, New University of Lisbon, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  14. Faria P, Campos A (2001b) Banking of genetic material and data in Europe: Legal, ethical and economical issues. Spanish Ethical-Legal Contextual Report (for the EUROGENBANK consortium). National School of Public Health, New University of Lisbon, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  15. Faria P, Campos A (2005) A nova lei sobre informacão de saúde, informaç ão genética e biobancos – Guia das disposiç ões mais importantes. Revista Portuguesa de Sa´ude P´ublica 23:97–101Google Scholar
  16. Galloux JC (1989) De la nature juridique du matériel génétique ou de la réification du corps humain et du vivant. Recherche Juridique 3:519–550Google Scholar
  17. Grandolfo GM (1992) The human property gap. Santa Clara Law Review 32:957–975Google Scholar
  18. Hakimian R, Korn D (2004) Ownership and use of tissue specimens for research. Journal of American Medical Association 292:2500–2505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harichaux M (1988) Le corps objet. In: Drai R, Harichaux M (Eds.) Bioéthique et Droit. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirtzlin I et al.(2003a) An empirical survey on biobanking of human genetic material and data in six EU countries (on behalf of the EUROGENBANK consortium). In: Knoppers BM (Ed.) Population and Genetics – Legal and Socio-Ethical Perspectives. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, BostonGoogle Scholar
  21. Hirtzlin I et al. (2003b) An empirical survey on biobanking of human genetic material and data in six EU countries. European Journal of Humans Genetics 11:475–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hofmann B et al. (2006) Analogical reasoning in handling emerging technologies: The case of umbilical cord blood biobanking. American Journal of Bioethics 6:49–57PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Janger EJ (2005) Genetic information, privacy and insolvency. Journal of Law,Medicine and Ethics 33:105–108Google Scholar
  24. Karlsen JR et al. (2006) To know the value of everything: A critical commentary to B. Björkman and S.O. Hansson’s ‘bodily rights and property rights’. Journal of Medical Ethics 32:215–219Google Scholar
  25. Kennedy I, Grubb A (2005) Medical Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Knoppers BM (1999) Status, sale and patenting of human genetic material: An international survey. Nature Genetics 22:23–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Labrusse-Riou C (1991) La maîtrise du vivant: matière à proces. Pouvoirs 56:106Google Scholar
  28. Leclercq P, Catala P (1992) L’information est-elle un bien? In: Carbonnier J et al. (Eds.) Droit et informatique – l’hermine et la puce, Masson, Paris, pp 91–109Google Scholar
  29. Lipinski TA, Britz JJ (2000) Rethinking the ownership of information in the 21st century: Ethical implications. Ethics and Information Technology 2:49–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazen N (1988) Réflexions juridiques sur le matériel génétique de l’homme. In: Drai R, Harrichaux M. (Eds.) Bioéthique et Droit, PUF, Paris, pp 194–210Google Scholar
  31. Merz JF et al. (2002) Protecting subject’s interests in genetics research. American Journal of Human Genetics 70:965–971PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Moine (1997) Les choses hors du commerce, une approche de la personne humaine juridique. LGDJ, ParisGoogle Scholar
  33. Noiville C, Bellivier F (2007) Les collections d’échantillons biologiques entre propriété et contrat. Revue des Contrats 2:493–504Google Scholar
  34. Portuguese National Council on Ethics (2008)
  35. Prata A (1989) Dicion´ario Jur´ıdico, 2nd edn. Almedina, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  36. Rynning E (2002) Legal issues on biobanking – Privacy versus freedom of research and property rights. Presentation at the “Workshop on Biobanks – Practical, ethical and legal aspects,” Sept. 12–13, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  37. Solbakk JH et al. (2004) Mapping the language of research-biobanks and health registries – From traditional biobanking to research biobanking – A project presentation. In: ´Arnason G et al. (Eds.) Blood and Data – Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects of Human Genetic Databases. University of Iceland Press, Center of Ethics, Reykjav´ık, pp 299–305Google Scholar
  38. Tallacchini M (2005) Rethoric of anonymity and property rights. In: Human Biological Materials (HBMs). Law and the Genome Review, January to June, pp 153–175Google Scholar
  39. Thouvenin D (1994) La personne et son corps: un sujet humain, pas un individu biologique. LPA 149:27Google Scholar
  40. Underkuffler LS (2003) The idea of property, its meaning and power. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNESCO (1997) Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human RightsGoogle Scholar
  42. Walker DM (1980) The Oxford Companion to Law. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Westerlund L, Persson AH (2001) Civil reflections on the use of human biological material. In: Hansson MG (Ed.) The Use of Human Biobanks – Ethical, Social, Economical and Legal Aspects, Report I. Uppsala University, Uppsala, pp 61–82Google Scholar
  44. The Washington University vs. W.J. Catalona et al. (2005)

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paula Lobato de Faria
    • 1
  1. 1.National School of Public HealthUniversidade Nova de LisboaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations