Current Volume 10
Property Rights in Human Biological Materials: A Case Study of John Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)
Abstract
This paper examines the critical legal and ethical failures in property rights for human biological materials, focusing on the landmark case John Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990). The California Supreme Court's decision created a profoundly unjust paradox: third parties can patent and commercialize human cells while the person from whose body they were removed has no ownership rights or financial benefits. This paper argues that denying property rights in excised tissue violates fundamental human dignity, undermines patient autonomy, and enables systematic exploitation—particularly of women, whose ova and reproductive tissues face disproportionate commercialization without adequate informed consent. The court's reliance on the flawed "abandonment theory" and bias toward protecting the biotechnology industry over individual rights demonstrates judicial misconduct incompatible with justice. Through analysis of ownership theory, personhood theory, and intellectual property versus bodily property conflict, this paper reveals how the current legal framework fails to protect individual rights while claiming to facilitate medical innovation. The paper proposes comprehensive legislative reform establishing limited donor property rights, mandatory benefit-sharing mechanisms, explicit commercial use consent requirements, and prohibitions on direct human cell patenting. True medical advancement does not require the denial of human rights. The path forward demands a balanced framework protecting both individual autonomy and scientific progress, recognizing that individuals are rightful owners of their biological materials and deserve control, benefit sharing, and the right to refuse commercial exploitation.
Keywords
Property rights in human biological materials, John Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990), Human tissue commercialization, Patient autonomy and informed consent, medical ethics and biotechnology, Donor ownership rights, Benefit-sharing mechanisms, Feminist jurisprudence and bodily autonomy, Intellectual property vs. bodily property, Human dignity and personhood theory`
Citations
IRE Journals:
Sarah Ramesh "Property Rights in Human Biological Materials: A Case Study of John Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals Volume 10 Issue 1 2026 Page 164-171 https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I1-1719446
IEEE:
Sarah Ramesh
"Property Rights in Human Biological Materials: A Case Study of John Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990)" Iconic Research And Engineering Journals, 10(1) https://doi.org/10.64388/IREV10I1-1719446
About IRE Journals
IRE Journals is an open access online journals established with an aim to publish high quality of research work in various diciplines. We have more than 6 years in publications. Over 2500+ papers already published.
Important Links
For Authors
Volume 9:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 8:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 7:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 6:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 5:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 4:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12Volume 3:
Issue 1, Issue 2, Issue 3, Issue 4, Issue 5, Issue 6, Issue 7, Issue 8, Issue 9, Issue 10, Issue 11, Issue 12