and others which were never informed and consented. The case was settled out of court and recognized that researchers illegally used tissue samples outside the scope of authorized use (NCIA 2010). In the case of Moore v. Regents of the University of California (Dorney 1990), the subject was treated for leukemia and had his infected spleen removed. He had blood, bone marrow, skin and sperm extracted and thought they were necessary to monitor his condition. His physician then patented and commercialized his cell line from those extractions. Moore sued the UCLA and physician for lack of informed consent and breach of their duty. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the physician and University of California that Moore had no initial interest in property and financial profit of the samples taken from his body, so he could not share the commercial profit of the research. …show more content…
In another case of Washington University v. Catalona (Rowe 2008), the physician collected over 10000 samples from prostate cancer patients when conducting research at the Washington University. When leaving the current position, Dr. Catalona attempted to take the tissues with him and the university filed suit against him. Although the consent form were signed by patients to give permission to collect and use the samples on the understanding that the physician owned these tissues, the form did not clearly address the transfer of samples. In this case, the court ruled in favor of the University as the true and rightful owner of the biological materials and can transfer these samples to other researchers. All these case studies have different scenarios and outcomes where the court determines who the tissues belongs to, and one can conclude that the law has not developed clear legal rights and ownerships of human