STS 11 Midterm 1

Henrietta Lacks case

Cancer cells were taken from her cervix to test for cancer, the HeLa cell line was created from her cells due to being “immortal.” Cells have been used for scientific research for years now (polio, cloning, gene mapping, radiation testing)

Ethical concerns/nuances of HeLa cells

Cells were taken without her consent, but original scientists/doctors did not patent nor profit from her cells. There was no financial compensation —> Henrietta died due to not having the financial resources to be treated for her cancer.

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Johh Moore went to UCLA to get his hairy cell leukemia treated, doctors told him to get his spleen removed because his blood cells produced a protein that increased growth of white blood cells. Moore signed many more vague consent forms —> Golde (doctor) was planning on patenting his cells without telling Moore the potential of his cells. Moore filed lawsuit against Golde + UCs wanting a split of all the possible profits.
Case went to LA Superior Court (Moore lost) —> appealed to California Court of Appeals (Moore won, stating that “blood tissues are personal property, patients have right to profits), appealed to Supreme Court of CA (Moore lost, patients have no rights to discarded cells, physicians should reveal financial interest/potential)

Nuance and long-term outcomes of Moore v. Regents of the University of California

The thing at stake was not Moore’s cells, but instead was the cell line aka its potential. This case redefined what was considered personal property —> relates to reading about how if we were to compensate individuals with potential cells would create a “lottery effect” since we can’t control the potential of our cells, so forcing compensation of all patients would make researchers less likely to perform research. If the things removed did not further put the patient at risk/discomfort, there is not need for compensation/further acknowledgement.

Ex Parte Latimer (1889)

Latimer wanted to patent pine needles but was rejected due to the “unreasonability to allow patents upon natural products” —> Product of Nature doctrine (natural things cannot be patented)

Plant Patent Act (1930)

If someone discovers or invents an asexually producing plant (other that tubers), may obtain a patent for said species

Plant Variety Protection Act (1970)

20-25 years of exclusive control of a plant species; must be new, distinct, uniform, and stable; okay for sexually reproducing plants and tuber propogates; public usage and research are able to use the plant without restriction

Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1981)

Diamond (under General Electric) created a oil-eating bacteria and argued that a living thing could be patented.

Patent was filed in 1972 and was rejected (“bugs are products of nature” —> the implication that living things are not patentable) —> Board of Patent Appeals (Diamond lost) because “bacteria are not products of nature” (explicitly stated that alive = not patentable) —> Supreme Court (Diamond won) 5-4 ruling, “anything under the sun that is made by man” is patentable.

AMP v. Myriad

AMP: BRCA genes are products of nature, patenting genes hinder research
Myriad: Isolation/purification act protects the isolation of BRCA gene. Diagnostic tests are patentable
District Court of NY, AMP wins (patent is invalid) —> Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, partially overturned (isolated DNA not found in nature can be patented) + diagnostics cannot be patented —> Supreme Court ruled in favor of AMP (DNA, just because it is isolated, does not make it patentable)

Parke Davis v. Mulford

Parke Davis purified and created a crystalized adrenaline —> was able to be patentable because it does not occur in nature and therefore is not a product of nature and is a human invention.

JEM Ag Supply v. Pioneer Hi-Bred

Pioneer Hi-Bred had a hybrid corn seed that was patented (limited license sale). JEM Ag Supply purchased the seeds and resold them, were sued for patent infringement. Iowa District Court upheld Pioneer’s patent —> Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit upheld Pioneer’s patent —> Supreme Court upheld Pioneer’s patent (Chakrabarty logic)

Fundamentalist v. Modernist view on scripture and evolution

Fundamentalist: scripture is law, we cannot deviate from it, boo Darwin evolution is fake
Modernist: scripture needs to be interpreted, there can be multiple acceptable interpretation, Darwin evolution is okay, science and scripture can coexist

Nuance of Darwin’s theory of evolution

Although is many degrees one of the first valid/scientific theories of evolutionary thought, it also was the logic/justification for eugenics and prejudice thought

The Scopes Trial

Test trial in TN to challenge the Butler Act (banning the teaching/textbooks/materials of evolutionary thought). John Scopes framed himself (with backing of ACLU) and went against the state of TN/lawyer William Jennings Bryan. In TN Supreme Court Scopes/lawyer Clarence Darrow lost (evolution can be taught but not in public schools). A landmark case in 1925 challenging the prohibition of teaching evolution in schools, highlighting the conflict between science and religion.

Francis Galton

“genius is heriditary,” argued that we can control of exactly what our future generations could look like through selective breeding/eugenics

Harry Laughlin

Director of Eugenics Record Office, created Immigration Act of 1924 (limited immigration, 86% of immigrants were North and West Europe, banned Japanese)

Margaret Sanger

American Birth Control League (Planned Parenthood)

Buck v. Bell (1927)

Carrie Buck was the daughter of Emma who was accused of prostitution, immorality, and syphilis and was admitted to the VA State Epileptic Colony. Carrie was an orphan and adopted by Alice and John Dobbs, was then pulled out of school at 6th grade. At 17, Carrie was raped and got pregnant, she was then committed to the the VA State Epileptic Colony (reasons: feeblemindedness, promiscuity, bad behavior) and gave birth to Vivian. Alberty Priddy wanted to turn Buck into a test case to see how strong the VA Sterilization Law was. Irving Whitehead (Buck’s lawyer) was friends with the lawyer going against “them” and essentially did not attempt to defend her at all, yet continuously appealed their loss in attempt to get the case to go all the way to the SC (Circuit Court of Amherst County —> VA SC of Appeals —> SC). Bell won, Buck lost (almost unanimous), this legitimized sterilization but in hindsight also raises the question, did Buck have due process?

Due process

Constitutional right that is from the 5th and 14th Amendment, essentially saying no person can be deprived of their constitutional rights without a fair legal process (same goes for state laws against people)

Skinner v. Oklahoma

OK passed Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act (1935) that, on surface, seemed fair (for what it was) since it explicitly stated that a jury needed to come to the conclusion of whether or not someone was a habitual criminal + sterilization would only be done if it was safe for the individual. However, the fine print is that this was not necessary for those suspected of prohibition, embezzlement, politics, etc. John T. Skinner was used as a test case to be sterilized. Lower court said he should be sterilized —> SC of OK also said he should be sterilized —> Supreme Court said no under the pretense that OK did not have equal protection for these criminals since certain crimes were being punished harsher than others in terms of sterilization yet were considered equal for other crimes/punishments. Punitive (punishment) sterilization was struck down.

Sterilization after Skinner v. Oklahoma

Sterilization as a punishment was no longer, however 60,00+ sterilizations occurred until around 1980

Madrigal v. Quilligan (1978)

Begins and ends of the District Court of CA. Eugenics in CA was especially against Mexicans and Asians. Consuelo Hermosillo and Dolores Madrigal both were forced to sign a document saying they could be sterilized before they were able to have a C-section at USC Medical Center. They realized this was a reoccurring pattern at this medical center and pressed a lawsuit against the doctor, James Quilligan. 10 women stepped forward (140 did not) and Karen Benker was the only witness from the hospital to step forward and stand with the women. Stated that Quilligan was being sent federal funding to lower the birth rate and population the Black and Mexican population in LA. Judge Jesse Curtis sides with USC and ignore Benker’s testament, instead arguing it was a “clash of cultures”

Sterilization after Madrigal v. Quilligan

Patients had 72 hours to change their mind after signing sterilization papers, sterilizations did not occur for people under 21, bilingual forms became more normalized, as were explicit discussions of rights from doctor to patient.

Sterilization continued in CA until 2010, and inmate sterilization was banned in 2013

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968)

Arkansas Statue, similar to Butler Act (The Scopes Trial), stating that evolutionary theory could not be taught in schools. Susan Epperson sued the state by arguing that the law infringed on her First Amendment rights to free speech and did not give her due process. At lowest court (Chancery Court) Epperson won —> SC of Arkansas said that AK was right and Epperson lost —> SC stated that Epperson won under the logic that the law was based on fundamentalist christian beliefs and there needed to be a separation of church and state. All evolutionary teaching bans fell through.