Patenting Human Genetic Material

The assignment content discusses the case of Greenberg v. Miami Children's Research Institute, where researchers conducted a study on Canavan disease and took tissue samples from patients without their consent. It is argued that the property rights of individuals cannot be used for consumption or subject to general interest. The research also raises concerns about informed consent, fiduciary duty, and public commons. The findings must be shared with the public as it affects the community as a whole.

Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Research Institute

Property rights of an individual
The research conducted by Dr. Matalon at the University of Chicago with the treatment of
Canavan disease is mainly done for identifying the reason of reason which afflicting the children
of eastern and central European (Greenfield et al., 2006). The samples are taken by the children
who are suffering from Canavan disease. So the samples of tissues which are taken by the
researchers for conducting the research is an individual property which cannot be used to sell the
license because it considers as the misappropriation of trade secrets and the researchers will
obtain economic advantage from the tissue samples of an individual. According to the property
law, the private property of an individual cannot be used for consumption and subject to the
general interest. The legal person shall not be deprived of their possession unless it's of public
interest and the subject to the condition which is provided by law. The researchers are also
providing the license by charging royalty fee without informing patients and financial supporters
which come under lack of informed consent (Oberdorfer et al., 2004).
Researchers
The human subject research is defined as the research which involves human beings. The
medical research can be done by the researcher, and the similar study can be conducted by the
researchers to find the distinct results so the previous study can be used as the secondary data
which helps to conduct the research successfully. So the licensing of research conducted by Dr.
Matalon is breaching fiduciary duty because they are not acting in the best interest of another
party and they are rather working for own interest by selling the license with royalty fee. The
samples taken from the patients on whom the research is conducted can be varied from one

patient to another which comes under conversion so another research by the researchers is
required to analyze the findings on Canavan's disease so the license should be abolished because
it is related to the health of society which is a topic of public interest.
Public Commons
The disease is a subject of public interest because it effects on the community as a whole. The
research must be shared equally because the disease can afflict any children in the country. The
findings must be shared to the public which helps to support the health index of a country. So the
research cannot be licensed, and it must be shared with the public. The information can be
accessed by an individual easily through media, newspaper, and others. The legal restriction
must not be implied on such information. The information related to health comes under public
commons, and it cannot be owned privately. The research conducted by Dr. Matalon on
Canavan's disease is a topic of public commons so the license must not be implemented on it
(Andrews et al., 2005).

References
Andrews, L. B., & Paradise, J. (2005). Gene patents: the need for bioethics scrutiny and legal
change. Yale J. Health Pol'y L. & Ethics, 5, 403.
Greenfield, D. L. (2006). Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital: Unjust enrichment and the
patenting of human genetic material. Annals Health L., 15, 213.
Oberdorfer, K. L. (2004). Lessons of Greenberg: Informed Consent and the Protection of Tissue
Sources' Research Interests, The. Geo. LJ, 93, 365.