Advertisement

Research Biobanks Meet Synthetic Biology: Autonomy and Ownership

  • Stephen R. MunzerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Two examples of research biobanks are discussed. The first is a set of stored blood samples taken from Havasupai Indians by scientists at Arizona State University (ASU). The second is a set of zinc finger proteins (ZFPs) and zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) assembled by Sangamo BioSciences, Inc. of California. Both examples involve individual and group autonomy, informational asymmetries, and exchange. Both examples are controversial but for different reasons. In the Havasupai case, the Indians claimed that the scientists used the blood samples to analyze a Havasupai predisposition to diabetes, to which they consented, and to extract information about Havasupai inbreeding, schizophrenia, and geographical origins, to which the Indians did not consent. Eventually, ASU returned the blood samples and compensated the tribe and some individual members. Scrutiny shows that the Havasupai complaints were mainly justified. As to ZFPs and ZFNs, some lawyer-scientists contend that Sangamo’s preeminent patent and trade secret position unfairly hinders others from benefiting from Sangamo’s knowledge. Close examination shows no unfairness in the Sangamo case, for two reasons. First, the Zinc Finger Consortium provided an open access alternative to dealing with Sangamo. Second, under standard economic criteria Sangamo did not have a monopoly on zinc finger technology.

Keywords

Zinc Finger Supra Note Synthetic Biology Trade Secret Female Genital Cutting 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Stephen R. Munzer thanks go to Douglas Fretty, Doug Lichtman, Nory Loeung, Jon Michaels, Hiroshi Motomura, Jennifer Mnookin, Neil Netanel, Frances Olsen, Stephanie Plotin, Angela R. Riley, Seana Shiffrin, and Eric Zolt. I am grateful for the short-term research assistance of Jenifer Morrissey and Matthew Schroeder and especially for the exceptional long-term research assistance of Mark Metzke and Jamie L. Summers.

References

  1. Anderson JC et al (2010) BglBricks: a flexible standard for biological part assembly. J Biol Eng 4:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin L, Lemmens T (2009) Privacy, Consent and Governance. In: Dierickx K, Borry P (eds) New challenges for biobanks: ethics. Law and Governance, Intersentia, pp 111–122Google Scholar
  3. Bratman M (2007) Structures of agency: essays. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown DD (1984) The role of stable complexes that repress and activate eucaryotic genes. Cell 37(2):359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cahoy DR, Glenna L (2009) Private ordering and public energy innovation policy. Florida State Univ Law Rev 36:415–447Google Scholar
  6. Chandrasekharan S et al (2009) Proprietary science. Open science and the role of patent disclosure: the case of zinc finger proteins. Nat Biotechnol 27(2):140–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Christman J (1994) The myth of property: toward an egalitarian theory of ownership. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Christman J (2009) The politics of persons: individual autonomy and socio-historical selves. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Copi IM (1972) Introduction to logic, 4th ed. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Duffy JF (2004) Rethinking the prospect theory of patents. Univ Chic Law Rev 71(2):439–510Google Scholar
  11. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL (1986) A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell J, Weiser PJ (2003) Modularity, vertical integration, and open access policies: towards a convergence of antitrust and regulation in the internet age. Harv J Law Technol 17(1):85–134Google Scholar
  13. Gibson DG et al (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genom. Science 329:52–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Harmon A (2010) Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. N.Y. Times, 21 April 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22dna.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
  15. Heller MA (1998) The tragedy of the anticommons: property in transition from marx to markets. Harv Law Rev 111:621–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280:698–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Horvatta I et al (1999) A genomewide screen for schizophrenia genes in an isolated Finnish subpopulation, suggesting multiple susceptibility loci. Am J Hum Genet 65(4):1114–1124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jha A (2005) From the cells up. The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/mar/10/science.research. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
  19. Klug A (2005) The discovery of zinc fingers and their practical applications in gene regulation: a personal account. In: Iuchi S, Kuldell N (eds) Zinc finger proteins: from atomic contact to cellular function. Kluwer, London, p 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Klug A (2010) The discovery of zinc fingers and their applications in gene regulation and genome manipulation. Annu Rev Biochem 79:213–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krishna SS et al (2003) Structural classification of zinc fingers. Nucleic Acids Res 31:532–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kroeber T (1961, 2002) Ishi in two worlds: a biography of the last wild Indian in North America. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Rai A (2007) Synthetic biology: the intellectual property puzzle. Texas Law Rev 75:1751–1768Google Scholar
  24. Lerner J, Tirole J (2002) Some simple economics of open source. J Ind Econ 50:197–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lerner J, Tirole J (2005) The economics of technology sharing: open source and beyond. J Econ Persp 19(2):99–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lichtman D (2005) Substitutes for the doctrine of equivalents: a response to Meurer and Nard. Georgetown Law J 93:2013Google Scholar
  27. Lightfoot-Klein H (1989) Prisoners of ritual: an odyssey into female genital circumcision in Africa. Harrington Park Press, BinghamtonGoogle Scholar
  28. Mann RJ (2006) Commercializing open source software: do property rights still matter? Harv J Law Technol 20:1Google Scholar
  29. Merges R, Nelson RR (1990) On the complex economics of patent scope. Columbia Law Rev 90:839–916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Miller J et al (1985) Repetitive zinc-binding domains in the protein transcription factor III a from Xenopus oocytes. EMBO J 4:1609–1614Google Scholar
  31. Munzer SR (2009) Commons, anticommons, and community in biotechnological assets. Theor Inq Law 10:271–298Google Scholar
  32. Noveck BS (2006) Peer to patent: collective intelligence, open review, and patent reform. Harv J Law Technol 20:123–162Google Scholar
  33. Office of the Sec’y (1979) Nat’l commission for the protection of human subjects of biomed. & behavioral res. The Belmont report. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
  34. Parfit D (1984) Reasons and persons. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Riley AR (2007) Good (native) governance. Columbia Law Rev 107:1049–1125Google Scholar
  36. Roberts JA et al (2006) Understanding the motivations, participation, and performance of open source software developers: a longitudinal study of the apache projects. Manag Sci 52:984–999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rohter L (2007) In the Amazon, giving blood but getting nothing. N.Y. Times, 20 June 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/20/world/americas/20blood.html?_r=1&pagewanted=pri. Accessed 25 Oct 2010
  38. Sander JD et al (2007) Zinc finger targeter (ZiFiT): an engineered zinc finger/target site design tool. Nucleic Acids Res 35:W599–W605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scott CT (2005) The zinc finger nuclease monopoly. Nat Biotechnol 23:915–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thomas SB, Quinn SC (1991) The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the Black community. Am J Public Health 81:1498–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zittrain J (2004) Normative principles for evaluating free and proprietary software. Univ Chic Law Rev 71:265–287Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations