This paper analyzes the ethical and legal frameworks surrounding human tissue and genetic information collection in light of Skloot's "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks." The author argues that while laws have not kept pace with the commoditization of genetic material, individuals should not retain ownership of discarded biological material. The paper contends that genetic information should be publicly available without names to advance medical research, and that refusing to contribute genetic material for research purposes is ethically indefensible. The author further argues against corporate monopolization of genetic data, proposing that neither individuals nor companies should own genetic information to ensure universal benefit from scientific advancement.
Skloot notes that there are not that many laws respecting the collection and use of human tissue samples. One of the key narratives in the Afterword is that ethics are different today because human tissue and genetic material has been commoditized. Now that companies can make money from this material, patent genes, and profit from human tissue collection, the situation differs markedly from that of Henrietta Lacks. Lacks did not consent to the use of her tissue, but in those days, nobody made money from it. Indeed, the Lacks cells are not owned by anybody.
Skloot makes an important point: the legal environment has not kept up with the economics of tissue samples and genetic information. It is this commoditization, combined with the absence of a legal framework, that has created the ethical issues we face today. More than half of all Americans have had samples collected from them, and these samples are stored on file. In many cases, there is little in the way of informed consent—as little as a checkbox on a form that probably is not read and certainly would not receive much thought from someone who is, by definition, seeking medical care. The practice of collecting samples is likely to continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
The most basic regulatory framework is the Common Rule, or Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, but this is often thought not to apply to tissue collection. The reasoning is that the material collected was already being removed from the patient; therefore, whatever happens to that material is not happening to the patient. This logic has merit—one may feel a sense of ownership over a former body part, but feeling ownership and actually being entitled to control it forever are two different things. Do we control our ex-partners? The Common Rule seldom applies, and Skloot also points out that the NIH has non-binding guidelines for its research. In general, there are no real legal protections for patients or guidance under law for tissue collection.
The closest thing to a legal framework comes from case law and limited statutory protections. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 offers some protection for the consequences of genetic information, but it does not provide a framework to prevent collection in the first place. HIPAA protects against the release of identifying information, as happened in Henrietta Lacks's case, but that is the extent of its coverage on this issue. Privacy is important, but it is not the most significant concern where genetic material is involved.
A fundamental question emerges: should people have control over their genetic information? The answer is no. At the individual level, genetic information is not a form of intellectual property. No person creates their genetic information—a model might make money from her appearance, but she does not own a copyright on her looks. There is a fundamental difference between a trait and something that someone actually produces. The same logic applies to companies. A company can argue that collecting, storing, and utilizing genetic information requires effort, which is true. But if a company undertakes that expense, it is an investment like any other. You spend money on marketing because it is part of creating an end product, but third-party genetic information is not a product—it is a trait.
The objection that once tissue is removed from the body, people should not retain claims over it has empirical support. Personal beliefs about burial practices have not compelled people to preserve all their toenail clippings from their entire lives. The same principle applies to any material removed from the body. Once something is discarded, it ceases to be your material in any meaningful sense. Religious or personal convictions about the use of one's biological material do not constitute rational arguments for control. Those convictions should not factor into this discussion at all.
The most compelling reason to deny individual ownership of genetic information is that such information can be used for human progress. Genetic information—with no names attached—should be publicly available so it can be used in research. The HeLa case is a classic example: perhaps Henrietta would have opposed the doctors' use of her samples. That opposition would have set back medicine significantly. Personal convictions and religious objections cannot be permitted to obstruct scientific advancement. These are not rational arguments and are unworthy of consideration in this discussion.
Society's ethical standards must be firm on this point. Using one's religion to justify the punishment and suffering of others is unacceptable, and withholding genetic material for research is precisely that: a form of harm. It is selfish, causes suffering, and has no place in a civilized society. Those who withhold their genetic information should not be permitted to benefit from any treatment or drug derived from genetic material collected from others. The individual benefit cannot be separated from the collective enterprise.
There is an argument that commoditization of tissue samples drives innovation when companies can take ownership. This may be true, but it is not in the best interests of science. Monopolies attract capital because they create market value, from which investors profit. Who does not profit? Everybody else. It is essential to recognize that we are aiming for everybody's benefit, and to deliver that benefit, there can be no ownership of genetic information and tissue samples.
The current system is already problematic because informed consent is practically meaningless. Once you discard something, you have discarded it—it is just data, not you. A coherent bioethics framework must acknowledge that biological material loses its connection to the individual upon removal and must prioritize the advancement of medicine and public health over claims of individual ownership. Neither individuals nor corporations should control genetic information if the goal is universal benefit from scientific progress.
The ethics of genetic information cannot be resolved by extending property rights to either individuals or corporations. Genetic material, once separated from the body, becomes a resource that belongs to no one and therefore should benefit everyone. The legal frameworks designed to protect human subjects have failed to address the realities of modern tissue collection and genetic research. A new approach is needed—one that treats genetic information as a social resource, openly available for research without restriction, and free from both individual claims and corporate monopolization. Only then can science advance in service of collective human progress.
You’re 96% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.