Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity

Resnik, David B.

doi:10.1007/s10728-007-0045-9

Cited by 19 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…US patents directed to human stem cell technologies have generated intense interest as well as controversy [14-16]. Many patents relating to stem cell technology have faced reexamination, litigation, or both [17, 18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These WARF patents with extremely broad claims have casted a shadow over the commercialization of these cells as therapeutics in the US’ biotechnology market so far [20]. While the controversies related to hESC patents in the US center on scientific and economic issues, in Europe, the patentability of hESCs has been met with fierce moral opposition [14]. The European Patent Office (EPO) has refused to grant hESC patents based on its interpretation of the “European Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions”, which holds unpatentable inventions concerning products of human stem cell cultures that can only be obtained by the use, involving their destruction, of human embryos [14, 21-25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the controversies related to hESC patents in the US center on scientific and economic issues, in Europe, the patentability of hESCs has been met with fierce moral opposition [14]. The European Patent Office (EPO) has refused to grant hESC patents based on its interpretation of the “European Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions”, which holds unpatentable inventions concerning products of human stem cell cultures that can only be obtained by the use, involving their destruction, of human embryos [14, 21-25]. The EPO regards patents on hESCs as illegal because they are patents on a human body or human body part, offend human dignity, or involve commercial or industrial uses of embryos [14, 21-25].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Parsons¹,

Teng²,

Moore³

et al. 2011

RPGM

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are genetically stable with unlimited expansion ability and unrestricted plasticity, proffering a pluripotent reservoir for in vitro derivation of a large supply of disease-targeted human somatic cells that are restricted to the lineage in need of repair. There is a large healthcare need to develop hESC-based therapeutic solutions to provide optimal regeneration and reconstruction treatment options for the damaged or lost tissue or organ that have been lacking. In spite of controversy surrounding the ownership of hESCs, the number of patent applications related to hESCs is growing rapidly. This review gives an overview of different patent applications on technologies of derivation, maintenance, differentiation, and manipulation of hESCs for therapies. Many of the published patent applications have been based on previously established methods in the animal systems and multi-lineage inclination of pluripotent cells through spontaneous germ-layer differentiation. Innovative human stem cell technologies that are safe and effective for human tissue and organ regeneration in the clinical setting remain to be developed. Our overall view on the current patent situation of hESC technologies suggests a trend towards hESC patent filings on novel therapeutic strategies of direct control and modulation of hESC pluripotent fate, particularly in a 3-dimensional context, when deriving clinically-relevant lineages for regenerative therapies.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Parsons¹,

Teng²,

Moore³

et al. 2011

RPGM

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the same time, there continues to be national and international debate regarding the appropriateness of biotechnology patents, particularly in the areas of genetics and stem cells [15][16][17][18][19]101]. While the evidence remains less than robust, some commentators have speculated that patents hurt the research environment by increasing secrecy and costs [7,10,[20][21][22].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: There has been a great deal of discussion in relevant literature on the adverse impact of commercialization agendas and the patenting regime on research in emerging fields. We sought to assess the perceived impact of these factors on the stem cell research community in Canada. Materials & methods: We surveyed 283 researchers from Canada’s Stem Cell Network using a survey instrument informed by relevant literature and systematic consultations with Canadian and international regulators, stem cell researchers and research ethics experts designed to identify pressing ethical, legal and social issues relevant to stem cell research. A total of 108 researchers responded to the survey. Results & conclusions: Results indicate that although many researchers believe that patents may have adverse effects on research, very few have encountered any such effects in practice. The researchers admitted to withholding data to protect patenting opportunities, while also maintaining that patents did not contribute to publication delays. The pressure to commercialize their research was largely held to be reasonable by researchers.

show abstract

“…14 And after careful analysis, David Resnik argues that dignity is still useful as it can be used to differentiate between patenting human embryos or totipotent embryonic stem cells, which violate human dignity, from patents on pluripotent or multipotent stem cells, that do not. 15 Galvin and Todres use Macklin and others' critique to elaborate seven dimensions of dignity (spatial, temporal, embodied, mood, interpersonal, identity, finitude dignity) and to establish a phenomenologically based concept of dignity referring to a "common 'wound' (vulnerability) and common honour (value)." 16…”

Section: Mylène Baum (Leuven)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The death of dignity is greatly exaggerated: Reflections 15 years after the declaration of dignity as a useless concept

Hofmann

2020

Bioethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fifteen years ago, Ruth Macklin shook the medical community with her claim in the BMJ that dignity is a useless concept. Her essay provoked a storm of reactions. What have we learned from the debate? In this article I analyse the responses to her essay and the following debate to investigate whether she was right that “[d]ignity is a useless concept in medical ethics and can be eliminated without any loss of content.” While some of the commentaries misconstrued her claim and argue against strawmen, others forcefully maintained that the concept of dignity has functions beyond “respect for persons and their autonomy.” One important point that came out of the debate is that dignity is a generic concept that covers more ground than “respect for persons or their autonomy.” In particular, dignity seems to have a wide range of protective functions as well as having reciprocal, relational, and social aspects. Dignity appears more attributional and norm‐formative than respect for persons and autonomy. While the claim that dignity is unclear, vague, and can be used sloganistically seems highly relevant, it is argued that this vagueness fulfils important functions in ethics. Moreover, dismissing dignity because of its lack of clarity has implications for “respect for persons” and “autonomy,” which are also used vaguely and sloganistically. No doubt medical ethics should use as a clear concept as the context requires. Nonetheless, dignity still seems to be a widely used generic concept in ethical debates and doing as much ethical work as “respect for persons” or “respect for autonomy.” Therefore, the death of dignity seems to be greatly exaggerated.

show abstract

Embryonic Stem Cell Patents and Human Dignity

Cited by 19 publications

References 26 publications

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Patents on Technologies of Human Tissue and Organ Regeneration from Pluripotent Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Patents, Commercialization and the Canadian Stem Cell Research Community

The death of dignity is greatly exaggerated: Reflections 15 years after the declaration of dignity as a useless concept

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About