这到底是谁的身体?人类细胞和财产和知识产权法的奇怪影响。

IF 4.9 1区 社会学 Q1 Social Sciences Stanford Law Review Pub Date : 2011-06-01
Robin Feldman
{"title":"这到底是谁的身体?人类细胞和财产和知识产权法的奇怪影响。","authors":"Robin Feldman","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as \"me\"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.</p>","PeriodicalId":51386,"journal":{"name":"Stanford Law Review","volume":"63 6","pages":"1377-402"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law.\",\"authors\":\"Robin Feldman\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as \\\"me\\\"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51386,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"volume\":\"63 6\",\"pages\":\"1377-402\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无论我在这个世界上拥有什么,直觉上很明显,我拥有我身体的细胞。除了所有人都承认为“我”的有形主体的组成部分之外,所有权的概念还能从哪里开始呢?然而,法律并没有如此清晰地看待这个问题,特别是当细胞不再存在于我的身体中时。正如法律上经常发生的那样,我们已经达到了这一点,不是通过设计,而是通过零散的概念的零碎发展,当这些概念聚集在一起时,形成了一幅奇怪而令人不安的画面。本文探讨了与不再存在于体内的人类细胞有关的财产和知识产权理论。本文特别讨论了生命科学过程专利背景下的Bilski案和基因专利背景下的Molecular Pathology案。对于专利法,文章的结论是,问题不在于基因构成可专利的主题,而在于被授予权利的范围。对于财产法和知识产权法,该条得出的结论是,更谨慎地适用基本法律原则,将更好地反映整个社会的利益、人类个体主体的利益以及创新者的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Whose body is it anyway? Human cells and the strange effects of property and intellectual property law.

Whatever else I might own in this world, it would seem intuitively obvious that I own the cells of my body. Where else could the notion of ownership begin, other than with the components of the tangible corpus that all would recognize as "me"? The law, however, does not view the issue so neatly and clearly, particularly when cells are no longer in my body. As so often happens in law, we have reached this point, not by design, but by the piecemeal development of disparate notions that, when gathered together, form a strange and disconcerting picture. This Article examines both property and intellectual property doctrines in relation to human cells that are no longer within the body. In particular, the Article discusses the Bilski decision, in the context of life science process patents, and the Molecular Pathology case, in the context of gene patents. For patent law, the Article concludes that the problem lies not with the fact that genes constitute patentable subject matter, but rather with the extent of the rights that are granted. For both property and intellectual property law, the Article concludes that a more careful application of basic legal principles would better reflect the interests of society as a whole and the interests of individual human subjects, as well as the interests of those who innovate.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
2.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Information not localized
期刊最新文献
Does nationality affect nurses' information security participation? A comparative study in Iran and Poland. "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. What Is Federalism in Healthcare For? "Sorry” Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail to Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk. Interrogated with Intellectual Disabilities: The Risks of False Confession.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1