Advertisement

Human Tissues in the “Public Space”: Beyond the Property/Privacy Dichotomy

  • Mariachiara TallacchiniEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

During the past 20 years, human biological materials (HBMs) have become increasingly important for research as well as for therapeutic uses and related commercial exploitation. The scientific and regulatory conditions for their procurement, testing, processing, preservation, storage, and distribution have been reflected upon widely and developed in both the civil law and the common law domains.

In the normative puzzle taking place around the biobanking of HBMs and information, the basic legal perspectives underlying most normative analyses remain anchored to the concepts of autonomy—also conceived of as privacy—and property. The former has been primarily developed in Europe, the latter in the US. Both are showing some failures, while the normative picture as a whole appears inadequate.

This contribution explores the main existing legal frameworks for biological materials, both in the US and EU contexts, and the potential for reconciling individual and collective dimensions in biobanking through a participatory approach.

The legal fate of bodily materials is somewhat similar to that of the environment. In both instances, the notions of subject of rights (the rights holder) and of object of property (the object held) have failed to fully represent the potential for collective sharing. And in both cases, the procedural participatory turn has allowed a more adequate legal imagination to address different needs and goals.

Keywords

European Union Biological Material Bodily Material Advanced Therapy Canavan Disease 
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

The present work was funded by the Progetto Sarroch Ambiente e Salute, PI Prof. Annibale Biggeri (Università di Firenze) and sponsored by the Fondazione Bioteca Sarroch.

References

  1. Andrews L (2006) Who owns your body? A patient’s perspective on Washington University v. Catalona. J Law Med Ethics 34:398–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyle J (1996) Shamans, software and spleens: law and the construction of the information society. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Cambon-Thomsen A, Rial-Sebbag E, Knoppers BM (2007) Trends in ethical and legal frameworks for the use of human biobanks. Eur Respir J 30:373–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caulfield T (2007) Biobanks and blanket consent: the proper place of the public good and public perception rationales. Kings Law J 18:209–226Google Scholar
  5. CDBI, Steering Committee on Bioethics (2005) Draft explanatory memorandum to the draft recommendation on research on biological materials of human origin Strasbourg, 12 December 2005 Restricted [bioethics/comités&GTs/plénier CDBI (2005)5REV2 doc de travail/2005/CDBI(2005)5e draft EM GT2biomatREV2 FINAL]Google Scholar
  6. Chandros Hull S et al (2008) Patients’ views on identifiability of samples and informed consent for genetic research. Am J Bioethics 8(10):62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charo RA (2006) Body of research-ownership and use of human tissue. N Engl J Med 355:1517–1519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Check Hayden E (2012) A broken contract. Nature 486:312–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. COE (Council of Europe) (2006) Recommendation Rec(2006)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on research on biological materials of human origin. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 March 2006 at the 958th meeting of the Ministers' DeputiesGoogle Scholar
  10. Da Rocha AC, Seoane JA (2008) Alternative consent models for biobanks: the new Spanish law on biomedical research. Bioethics 22(8):440–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DG Enterprise Consultation (April 2004) Proposal for a harmonised regulatory framework on human tissue engineered products. http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/…/consultation_paper-2008-07-22_en.pdf. Accessed Jul 2012Google Scholar
  12. Edelman B, Hermitte MA (1988) L’homme, la nature et le droit. Christian Bourgois, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. EGE, European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission (21 July 1998) Opinion 11 ethical aspects of human tissue bankingGoogle Scholar
  14. European Data Protection Supervisor (15 August 2009) Opinion of the European data protection supervisor on the proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on standards of quality and safety of human organs intended for transplantation (2009/C 192/02). Off J Eur UnionGoogle Scholar
  15. Glantz L, Roche P, Annas GJ (2008) Rules for donations to tissue banks—what next? N Engl J Med 358(3):298–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gottweis H, Lauss G (2010) Biobank governance in the post-genomic age. Personalized Med 7(2):187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Greely HT (1999) Breaking the stalemate: a prospective regulatory framework for unforeseen research uses of human tissue samples and health information. Wake Forest Law Rev 34:737–766Google Scholar
  18. Greely HT (2007) The uneasy ethical and legal underpinnings of large-scale genomic biobanks. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 8:343–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson MG (2005) Building on relationships of trust in biobank research. J Med Ethics 31:415–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hansson MG (2009) Ethics and biobanks. Br J Cancer 100(1):8–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Harrison CH (2002) Neither Moore nor the market: alternative models for compensating contributors of human tissue. Am J Law Med 28:77–105Google Scholar
  23. Hofmann B (2009) Broadening consent–and diluting ethics? J Med Ethics 35(2):125–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honoré AM (1962) Gaius. A biography. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Horowitz CR, Robinson M, Seifer S (2009) Community-based participatory research from the margin to the mainstream are researchers prepared? Circulation 119:2633–2642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. ICH, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (November 2007) Definitions for genomic biomarkers, pharmacogenomics, genomic data and sample coding categories, E15, Current step 4 versionGoogle Scholar
  27. Jasanoff S (2010) Taking life: private rights in public nature. In: Sunder Rajan K (ed) Lively capital. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasanoff S (ed) (2011) Reframing rights: bio-constitutionalism in the genetic age. MIT, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Karlsen JR (2011) Platypus politics: normative figments of post genomic research biobanking. Doctoral Dissertation, OsloGoogle Scholar
  30. Karlsen JR, Solbakk JH, Strand R (2009) In the ruins of Babel: should biobank regulations be harmonized? In: Solbakk JH, Holm S, Hofmann B (eds) The ethics of research biobanking. Springer US, New York, pp 331–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lipworth W, Ankeny R, Kerridge I (2006) Consent in crisis: the need to reconceptualize consent to tissue banking research. Intern Med J 36(2):124–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowrance WW (November 2002) Learning from experience: privacy and the secondary use of data in health research. The Nuffield Trust, London. http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/publications/learning-experience-privacy-and-secondary-use-data-health-research. Accessed Jul 2012
  33. Lunshof JE, Chadwick R, Daniel B, Vorhaus DB, George M, Church GM (2008) From genetic privacy to open consent. Nat Rev Genet 9(5):406–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MRC, Medical Research Council, The Wellcome Trust (2006) Access to collections of data and materials for health research. LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. NBAC, National Bioethics Advisory Committee (1999) Research involving human biological materials: ethical issues and policy guidance, report and recommendations. Rockville. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs.html. Accessed Jul 2012Google Scholar
  36. O'Doherty KC, Burgess MM (2009) Engaging the public on biobanks: outcomes of the BC biobank deliberation. Public Health Genomics 12(4):203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. OHRP, Office for Human Research Protections (16 October 2008) Guidance on research involving coded private information or biological specimens. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/cdebiol.html. Accessed Jul 2012Google Scholar
  38. OTA, Office of Technology Assessment (March 1987) New developments in biotechnology: ownership of human tissues and cells, Special report, OTA-BA-337. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Passmore J (1974) Man’s responsibility for nature. Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Rao R (2007) Genes and spleens: property, contract, or privacy rights in the human body? J Law Med Ethics 35(3):371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rèmond-Gouilloud M (1989) Du droit de détruire. Essai sur le droit de l’environnement. PUF, ParisGoogle Scholar
  42. Resnik DB, Kennedy CE (2010) Balancing scientific and community interests in community-based participatory research. Account Res 17(4):198–210Google Scholar
  43. Saha K, Hurlbut JB (2011) Treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature 478:312–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salvaterra E et al (2008) Banking together. A unified model of informed consent for biobanking. EMBO Rep 9(4):307–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stone CD (1972) Should trees have standings? Towards legal rights or natural objects. Southern Calif Law Rev 45:450–487Google Scholar
  46. US Supreme Court, Office of the Clerk, Washington DC 20543-0001 (20 August 2007) http://prostatecure.wustl.edu/pdf/SupremeCourtLetter.pdf. Accessed Jul 2012Google Scholar
  47. Tallacchini M (2005) Rhetoric of anonymity and property rights in human biological materials (HBMs). Law Hum Genome Rev (January–June):153–175Google Scholar
  48. Tallacchini M (2009) Governing by values, EU ethics: soft tool, hard effects. Minerva 47(3):281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tutton R, Kaye J, Hoeyer K (2004) Governing UK biobank: the importance of ensuring public trust. Trends Biotechnol 22(6):284–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. UNESCO (2008) Report of the International Bioethics Committee of UNESCO on Consent Social and Human Sciences Sector Division of Ethics of Science and Technology, Bioethics Section SHS/EST/CIB08-09/2008/1Google Scholar
  51. Winickoff DE, Winickoff RN (2003) The charitable trust as a model for genomic biobanks. N Engl J Med 349:1180–1184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wright Clayton E (2005) Informed consent and biobanks. J Law Med Ethics 33(1):5–21Google Scholar
  53. Wynne B et al (January 2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously. DG Research Science, Economy and Society, BrusselsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Università Cattolica S.C.PiacenzaItaly
  2. 2.Università degli Studi of MilanMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations