Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nobody’s Thing? Consent, Ownership, and the Politics of Tissue Culture

  • Chapter
Tissue Culture in Science and Society

Part of the book series: Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History ((STMMH))

  • 87 Accesses

Abstract

As we have seen, the scientific collection of tissue for research was widely viewed as unproblematic for much of the twentieth century. But this practice became contentious during the 1970s and 1980s, when excised tissues became the subject of often heated debate, with scientists, social groups, lawyers and a new breed known as ‘bioethicists’ questioning the ethics and legality of the procedures that transformed them into experimental tools. These questions played out in academic conferences and journals, in court, in bioethical reports and government legislation, in newspapers and even spilled onto the streets in protests.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Helen Busby, ‘Informed Consent: The Contradictory Ethical Safeguards in Pharmacogenetics’, in Richard Tutton and Oonagh Corrigan (eds), Genetic Databases: Socio-ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 78–97.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See Mitchell Dean, Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society (London: Sage Publications, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Nikolas Rose, Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Henry Stanhope, ‘Live Foetuses Sold for Research — MP’, The Times (16 May 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  5. On the 1967 Abortion Act, see Barbara Brooks, Abortion in England, 1900–1967 (London: Croom Helm, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Naomi Pfeffer and Julie Kent, ‘Framing Women, Framing Fetuses: How Britain Regulates Arrangements for the Collection and Use of Aborted Fetuses in Stem Cell Research and Therapies’, Biosocieties, Vol. 2 (2007), pp. 429–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Brookes, Abortion in England (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Anon., ‘Use of Live Foetus Backed’ The Times (18 May 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Anon., ‘Unborn Babies: Doctors May Get New Code of Practice’, the Daily Express (19 May 1970). Emphasis in original.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Department of Health and Social Security, Scottish Home and Health Department, Welsh Office, The Use of Foetuses and Foetal Material for Research: Report of the Advisory Group (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1972), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pfeffer and Kent, ‘Framing Women, Framing the Fetus’ (2007), p. 433.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lawrence, ‘Beyond the Grave’ (1998), p. 111.

    Google Scholar 

  13. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 288.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. For more on the ‘work-and-skill’ principle, see Loane Skene, ‘Who Owns Your Body? Legal Issues in the Ownership of Bodily Material’, Trends in Molecular Medicine, Vol. 8 (2008), pp. 48–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bronwyn Parry and Cathy Gere, ‘Contested Bodies: Property Models and the Commodification of Human Biological Artefacts’, Science as Culture, Vol. 15 (2006), pp. 139–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. James Risen and Judy L. Thomas, The Wrath of Angels: The American Abortion War (New York: Basics Books, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  17. David J. Garrow, Liberty and Sexuality: The Right to Privacy and the Making of Roe v Wade (Oxford: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Adam Hedgecoe, ‘A Form of Practical Machinery: The Origins of Research Ethics Committees in the UK, 1967–1972’, Medical History, Vol. 53 (2009), pp. 331–50, on p. 338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. See also Richard Ashcroft and Mary Dixon-Woods, ‘Regulation and the Social Licence for Medical Research’, Medical Health Care and Philosophy, Vol. 11 (2008), pp. 381–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. On the emergence of ‘bioethics’ in the United States, see Renee Fox and Judith Swazey, Observing Bioethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  21. M.L. Tina Stevens, Bioethics in America: Origins and Cultural Politics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  22. David Rothman, Strangers at the Bedside: A History of How Law and Bioethics Transformed Medical Decision Making (New York: Basic Books, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  23. On the infamous Tuskegee syphilis experiments, see James H. Jones, Bad Blood (New York: Free Press, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Paul Ramsey, The Ethics of Fetal Research (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975), p. 67.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ramsey, Ethics of Fetal Research (1975), pp. xii, 67.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Diana S. Hart, ‘Fetal Research and Anti-Abortion Politics: Holding Science Hostage’, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 72–82, on p. 73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Daniel Callahan, Abortion: Law, Choice and Morality (London: Collier-Macmillan, 1972).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Leonard Hayflick, Stanley A. Plotkin, Thomas W. Norton and Hilary Koprowski, ‘Preparation of Poliovirus in a Human Fetal Diploid Cell Strain’, American Journal of Hygiene, Vol. 75 (1962), pp. 240–58.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hilary Koprowski, ‘Live Poliomyelitis Vaccines: Present Status and Problems for the Future’, Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 178 (1961), pp. 1151–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Donald J. Merchant (ed.), Cell Cultures for Virus Vaccine Production (Maryland: National Institute of Health, 1968).

    Google Scholar 

  31. J.P. Jacobs, C.M. Jones and J.P. Baille, ‘The Characteristics of a Human Diploid Cell Designated MRC-5’, Nature, Vol. 227 (1970), pp. 168–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Leonard Hayflick, ‘The Coming of Age of WI-38’, in Karl Maramorsch (ed.), Advances in Cell Culture, Volume 3 (Orlando: Academic Press, 1984), pp. 303–16.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Hayflick, ‘Coming of Age of WI-38’ (1984), p. 313.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See Hayflick (1984), p. 303. This paper on cell aging was eventually accepted and published as Leonard Hayflick, ‘The Limited In Vitro Lifespan of Human Diploid Cell Strains’, Experimental Cell Research, Vol. 37 (1965), pp. 614–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Witkowski, ‘Dr. Carrel’s Immortal Cells’ (1980), pp. 133–5.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Leonard Hayflick, interview with the author (20 December 2004). On the use of WI-38 in the Skylab mission, see P.O’B. Montgomery, Jr., J.E. Cook, R.C. Reynolds, J.S. Paul, L. Hayflick, D. Stock, W.W. Schulz, S. Kimsey, R.G. Thirlof, T. Rogers and D. Campbell, ‘The Response of Single Human Cells to Zero Gravity’, In Vitro, Vol. 14 (1978), pp. 165–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Barbara J. Culliton, ‘Grave-Robbing: The Charge Against Four from Boston City Hospital’, Science, Vol. 186 (1974), pp. 420–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Culliton, ‘Grave-Robbing’ (1974).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Barbara J. Culliton, ‘National Research Act: Restores Training, Bans Fetal Research’, Science, Vol. 185 (1974), pp. 426–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Diana S. Hart, ‘Fetal Research and Anti-Abortion Politics: Holding Science Hostage’, Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 7 (1975), pp. 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Angela Holder and Robert Levine, ‘Informed Consent for Research on Specimens Obtained at Autopsy or Surgery: A Case Study in the Overprotection of Human Subjects’, Clinical Research, Vol. 24 (1976), pp. 68–77.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Lewis Corriel, ‘The Scientific Responsibilities at Issue’, In Vitro, Vol. 13, no. 10 (1977), pp. 632–41, on pp. 639–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Fox and Swazey, Observing Bioethics (2008), pp. 128–45.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. See Stevens, Bioethics in America (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  45. William J. Winslade, ‘An Overview of the Scientist’s Responsibilities: Comments by an Attorney’, In Vitro, Vol. 13, no. 10 (1977), pp. 712–27, on p. 714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Winslade, ‘An Overview of the Scientist’s Responsibilities’ (1977), p. 716.

    Google Scholar 

  47. B.D. Davis, ‘The Social Control of Science’, in Alun Milunsky and George Annas (eds), Genetics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1975), pp. 301–14.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thomas Hearn, responding to E. Maynard Adams, ‘The Ethical Responsibilities at Issue’, In Vitro, Vol. 13, no. 10 (1977), p. 607.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ronald Nardone, responding to E. Maynard Adams, ‘Ethical Responsibilities’ (1977), p. 609.

    Google Scholar 

  50. William R. Wasserstrom, responding to Marshall Shapo, ‘Legal Responsibilities at Issue — Emphasis on Informed Consent’, In Vitro, Vol. 13, no. 10 (1977), pp. 613–31, on p. 628.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nicholas Wade, ‘Hayflick’s Tragedy: The Rise and Fall of a Human Cell Line’, Science, Vol. 192 (1976), pp. 125–7, on p. 125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. See also Stephen Hall, Merchants of Immorality: Chasing the Dream of Human Life Extension (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Harold M. Schmeck Jr., ‘Investigator Says Scientist Sold Cell Specimens Owned by US’, New York Times (28 March 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wade, ‘Hayflick’s Tragedy’ (1976), p. 127.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Leonard Hayflick, ‘A Novel Technique for Transforming the Theft of Mortal Human Cells into Praiseworthy Federal Policy’, Experimental Gerontology, Vol. 33 (1998), pp. 191–207, on p. 196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Constance Holden, ‘Hayflick Case Settled’, Science, Vol. 215 (1982), p. 271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. This was extended to cover private firms in 1983. See John Walsh, ‘President Tells Agencies to Lower Patent Bars’, Science, Vol. 219 (1983), pp. 1408–9, on p. 1408.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Diamond v Chakrabarty 447 US 303, 100 S Ct 2204 US 1980. See also Daniel J. Kevles, ‘Diamond v Chakrabarty and Beyond: The Political Economy of Patenting Life’, in Arnold Thackray (ed.), Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), pp. 65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Hayflick, ‘A Novel Technique’ (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Barbara J. Culliton, ‘Patient Sues UCLA Over Cell Line’, Science, Vol. 225 (1984), p. 1458.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, Ownership of Human Tissues and Cells (New York: Books for Business, 1987), pp. 45, 50–1.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1995), pp. 85–6.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nicholas Wade, ‘University and Drug Firm Battle Over Billion-Dollar Gene’, Science, Vol. 209 (1984), pp. 1492–4, on p. 1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. H. Phillip Koeffler and David W. Golde, ‘Acute Myelogenous Leukemia: A Human Cell Line Responsive to Colony Stimulating Activity’, Science, Vol. 200 (1978), pp. 1153–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. On the history of interferon, see Toine Pieters, ‘Hailing a Wonder Drug: the Interferon’, in Willem de Blecourt and Cornelie Usborne (eds), Cultural Approaches to the History of Medicine (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003), pp. 212–22.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Wade, ‘Battle Over Billion-Dollar Gene’ (1980), p. 1493.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Dorothy Nelkin, Science as Intellectual Property: Who Controls Scientific Research? (London: Macmillan Press, 1984), pp. 12–16.

    Google Scholar 

  68. The products of these hybridoma cell lines, known as ‘monoclonal antibodies’, became scientifically important and commercially remunerative tools during the 1980s. For a history of monoclonal antibodies, see Alberto Cambrosio and Peter Keating, Exquisite Specificity: The Monoclonal Antibody Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Marjorie Sun, ‘Scientists Settle Cell Line Dispute’, Science, Vol. 220 (1983), pp. 393–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Sun, ‘Scientists Settle Cell Line Dispute’ (1983), p. 393.

    Google Scholar 

  71. John Moore v the Regents of the University of California (1990), 51 Cal 3d 120. For more background on the case, see Waldby and Mitchell, Tissue Economies (2007), pp. 88–110.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Paul Rabinow, ‘Severing the Ties: Fragmentation and Redemption in Late Modernity’, in Paul Rabinow, Essays on the Anthropology of Reason (Princeton: University of Princeton Press, 1996), pp. 129–53.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Hannah Landecker, ‘Between Beneficence and Chattel: The Human Biological in Law and Science’, Science in Context, Vol. 12 (1999), pp. 203–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Barbara J. Culliton, ‘Patient Sues UCLA Over Patent on Cell Line’, Science, Vol. 225 (1984), p. 1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Barbara J. Culliton, ‘Mo Case Has Its First Court Hearing’, Science, Vol. 226 (1984), pp. 813–14, on p. 813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Leon E. Rosenberg, ‘Using Patient Materials for Product Development: A Dean’s Perspective’, Clinical Research, Vol. 33 (1985), pp. 452–3, on p. 425.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Alan E. Otten, ‘Researchers’ Use of Blood, Bodily Tissues Raises Question About Sharing Profits’, The Wall Street Journal (29 January 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Culliton, ‘Mo Case Has Its First Court Hearing’ (1984), p. 813.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Sandra Blakeslee, ‘Patient Sues for Title to Own Cells’, Nature, Vol. 311 (1984), p. 198.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Barbara Culliton, ‘Patient Sues UCLA over Patent on Cell Line’, Science, Vol. 225 (1984), p. 1458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Ivor Royston, ‘Cells from Human Patients: Who Owns Them? A Case Report’, Clinical Research, Vol. 33 (1985), p. 443.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Lori B. Andrews, ‘My Body, My Property’, Hasting Center Report, Vol. 16 (1986), pp. 28–38, on p. 37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Andrews, ‘My Body, My Property’ (1986), p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Arthur L. Caplan, ‘Blood, Sweat and Tears, and Profits: The Ethics of the Sale and Use of Patient Derived Materials in Biomedicine’, Clinical Research, Vol. 33 (1985), pp. 448–52.

    Google Scholar 

  85. George Annas, ‘Outrageous Fortune: Selling Other People’s Cells’, in George Annas (ed.), Standard of Care: The Law of American Bioethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  86. William J. Curran, ‘Scientific and Commercial Development of Cell Lines: Issues of Property, Ethics and Conflict of Interest’, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 324 (1991), pp. 998–1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. See, for example, Sharon N. Perley, ‘From Control Over One’s Body to Control Over One’s Parts: Extending the Doctrine of Informed Consent’, New York University Law Review, Vol. 67 (1992), pp. 335–66.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Catherine A. Tallerico, ‘The Autonomy of the Human Body in the Age of Biotechnology’, University of Colorado Law Review, Vol. 61 (1990), pp. 659–80.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ian Kennedy, ‘What is a Medical Decision? The 1979 Astor Memorial Lecture’, reprinted in Ian Kennedy, Treat Me Right: Essays in Medical Law and Ethics, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), pp. 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  90. This argument was made forcefully in Kennedy’s 1980 Reith Lectures, reprinted as idem, The Unmasking of Medicine (London: Allen and Unwin, 1981).

    Google Scholar 

  91. See Brian Salter, The New Politics of Medicine (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  92. See Soraya de Chadarevian, Designs for Life: Molecular Biology After World War II (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 336–63.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Diana Brahams, ‘A Disputed Spleen’, the Lancet, Vol. 332 (1988), pp. 1151–2, on p. 1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Brahams, ‘Disputed Spleen’ (1988), p. 1152.

    Google Scholar 

  95. R. Ian. Freshney, Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique (Chichester: Willey-Liss, 1987), p. 112.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Anon., ‘Human Tissue as an Alternative in Bio-Medical Research’, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Vol. 14 (1987), pp. 375–80, on p. 375.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Anon., ‘Human Tissue’ (1987), p. 376.

    Google Scholar 

  98. J.H. Fentem, ‘Conference Report: The Use of Human Tissues in In Vitro Toxicology’, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Vol. 21 (1993), pp. 388–9, on p. 389.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Diana Brahams ‘Ownership of a Spleen’, the Lancet, Vol. 366 (1990), p. 329.

    Google Scholar 

  100. J. Gurney and M. Balls, ‘Obtaining Human Tissues for Research and Testing: Practical Problems and Public Attitudes in Britain’, in V. Rogiers (ed.), Human Cells in In Vitro Pharmaco-Toxicology: Present Status Within Europe (Brussels: VUB Press, 1993), pp. 315–28.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Gurney and Balls, ‘Obtaining Human Tissues’ (1993), p. 327.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Anon., ‘Medical and Scientific Uses of Human Tissue’, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Vol. 20 (1992), p. 200.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Stephen Lock, ‘Toward a National Ethics Committee’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 300 (1990), pp. 1149–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. see also Sheila Jasanoff, Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  105. Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues (1995), p. iv.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Richard Tutton, ‘Person, Property and Gift: Exploring the Languages of Tissue Donation’, in Richard Tutton and Oonagh Corrigan (eds), Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA (London: Routledge, 2004), pp. 19–39.

    Google Scholar 

  107. See also Richard Titmuss, The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1970).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Anon., ‘Working Party Speaks Out on the Use of Human Tissue’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 310 (1995), p. 1159.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Chris Broadhead, ‘Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues’, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals, Vol. 23 (1995), p. 435.

    Google Scholar 

  110. R.D. Start, W. Brown, R.J. Bryant, M.W. Reed, S.S. Cross, G. Kent and J.C.E. Underwood, ‘Ownership and Uses of Human Tissue: Does the Nuffield Bioethics Report Accord with Opinion of Surgical Inpatients?’, British Medical Journal, Vol. 313 (1996), pp. 1366–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Start et al, ‘Ownership and Uses of Human Tissue’ (1996), p. 1368.

    Google Scholar 

  112. UKCCCR secretariat, ‘UKCCCR Guidelines for the Use of Cell Lines in Cancer Research’, British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 82, no. 9 (2000), pp. 1495–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Onora O’Neill, ‘Medical and Scientific Uses of Human Tissue’, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 22 (1996), pp. 2–5, on p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  114. UKCCCR, ‘Guidelines for the Use of Cell Lines’ (2000), p. 1496.

    Google Scholar 

  115. R. Ian Freshney, Culture of Animal Cells: A Manual of Basic Technique (Fourth Edition: Chichester: Wiley-Liss, 2000), p. 154.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Freshney, Culture of Animal Cells (2000), p. 151.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Salter, New Politics of Medicine (2004), p. 57.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Salter (2004). See also Clive Seale, Debbie Cavers and Mary Dixon-Woods, ‘Commodification of Body Parts: By Medicine or by Media?’, Body and Society, Vol. 12 (2006), pp. 25–42; Waldby and Mitchell (2007), pp. 37–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Nigel Bunyan, ‘Alder Hey Sold Tissue from Children’, the Daily Telegraph (27 January 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Ken Mason and Graeme Laurie, ‘Consent or Property? Dealing with the Body and Its Parts in the Wake of Bristol and Alder Hey’, Modern Law Review, Vol. 64 (2001), pp. 710–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Graeme Laurie, Genetic Privacy: A Challenge to Medico-Legal Norms (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  122. Jane Wildgoose, ‘Who Really Owns Our Bodies?’, the Guardian (30 January 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Wildgoose, ‘Who Really Owns Our Bodies?’ (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Medical Research Council, Human Tissue and Biological Samples for Use in Research (London: Medical Research Council, 2001), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  125. The Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, Public Perceptions of the Collection of Human Biological Samples (London: Wellcome Trust and the Medical Research Council, 2000), p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Department of Health, Human Bodies, Human Choices: The Law on Tissue Retention in England and Wales (London: HMSO, 2001). The full document is available online through the United Kingdom National Archives, at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/en/Consultations/Closedconsultations/DH_4081562.

    Google Scholar 

  127. Madeleine Brindley, ‘Research Hit by Organ Scandal’, the Western Mail (17 December 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Brindley, ‘Research Hit by Organ Scandal’ (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  129. Colin Blakemore, ‘Human Tissue Bill: Views of the Medical Research Council’, MRC Press Release (26 January 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  130. Gaby Hinscliffe and Robin McKie, ‘Doctors Beat Curbs on Tissue Research’, the Observer (6 June 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  131. L.J.C. Clarke, cited in Muireann Quigley, ‘Property: The Future of Human Tissue?’, Medical Law Review, Vol. 17 (2009), pp. 457–66, on p. 461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. L.J.C. Clarke, cited in Nuffield Council on Bioethics consultation paper, Give and Take? Human Bodies in Medicine and Research (London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics, April 2010), p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  133. See, for example, Andrews and Nelkin, Body Bazaar (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  134. Kimbrell, The Human Body Shop (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  135. On how interest groups interpret and represent the ‘public’, see David Cantor, ‘Representing “the Public”’, in Steve Sturdy (ed.), Medicine, Health and the Public Sphere in Britain, 1600–2000 (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 145–69. A growing literature on the recent emergence of patient rights groups also highlights the complex and often contradictory nature of ‘public opinion’.

    Google Scholar 

  136. See, for example, Steven Epstein, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  137. Paul Rabinow, French DNA: Trouble in Purgatory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  138. Klaus Hoeyer, ‘Person, Patent and Property: A Critique of the Commodification Hypothesis’, Biosocieties, Vol. 2 (2007), pp. 327–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Manchester, UK

    Duncan Wilson (Wellcome Trust Research Associate)

Authors
  1. Duncan Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2011 Duncan Wilson

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wilson, D. (2011). Nobody’s Thing? Consent, Ownership, and the Politics of Tissue Culture. In: Tissue Culture in Science and Society. Science, Technology and Medicine in Modern History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307513_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307513_6

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32945-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-230-30751-3

  • eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation