Key Takeaways

1. No Property Rights in Excised Cells: The California Supreme Court held that patients do not retain property rights over their cells once they are removed from their body, and thus cannot claim profits from commercial use or research derived from those cells.
2. Expanded Physician Disclosure Duties: The Court emphasized that physician-researchers have a fiduciary duty to fully disclose any personal or economic interests in a patient’s biological materials, strengthening the requirements for informed consent.
3. Enduring Impact on Bioethics and Biotechnology: Moore v. Regents of the University of California is a foundational case shaping the legal, ethical, and commercial landscape for the use of human biological materials in research and product development.

Introduction

Moore v. Regents of the University of California is a landmark decision from the Supreme Court of California, decided on July 9, 1990. The case addressed a fundamental and novel question: Does a patient retain property rights in cells and tissues removed from their body, especially when those materials are later used for lucrative scientific research or commercial products? The court’s answer—no—has had profound implications for medical research, biotechnology, and patient rights, while also raising complex ethical and legal questions that remain relevant today.

This guide provides a comprehensive overview of the Moore case, its background, legal reasoning, and ongoing significance. We will explore the facts, the court’s analysis, the dissenting opinions, and the broader impact on law, medicine, and ethics.

Case Background

The Parties

• Plaintiff: John Moore, a patient diagnosed with hairy cell leukemia.
• Defendants: Regents of the University of California, Dr. David W. Golde (Moore’s physician), and others involved in the research and commercialization of Moore’s cells.

Factual Overview

In 1976, John Moore sought treatment for leukemia at the UCLA Medical Center. Under the care of Dr. Golde, Moore underwent a splenectomy (removal of the spleen) and returned regularly for follow-up visits where blood, bone marrow, and other samples were taken. Unbeknownst to Moore, Dr. Golde and his research team recognized that Moore’s cells were uniquely valuable for their ability to produce certain proteins, leading to the development of a cell line with significant commercial potential.

Dr. Golde and the University of California patented the cell line, known as the “Mo” cell line, and entered into lucrative agreements with commercial entities. Moore was not informed of these activities, nor of the economic interests involved. When he discovered the situation, he filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that his property rights had been violated and that he was entitled to a share of the profits.

Procedural History

Moore’s complaint included thirteen causes of action, but the trial court focused on the first: conversion (the wrongful exercise of dominion over another’s property). The trial court dismissed this claim, reasoning that Moore had no property interest in his cells after their removal. The California Court of Appeal reversed, finding Moore had adequately stated a conversion claim. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of California, which issued its decision in 1990.

For the official opinion, see Justia Law: Moore v. Regents of the University of California.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Do patients have property rights in their excised cells and tissues?

2. Are patients entitled to share in profits derived from research or commercial products developed from their biological materials?

3. What duties do physician-researchers owe patients regarding disclosure of research and financial interests?

These questions touch on the intersection of property law, tort law (conversion), fiduciary duty, and the doctrine of informed consent.

The Court’s Analysis

Majority Opinion (Justice Panelli)

Property Rights and Conversion

The central issue was whether Moore retained a property interest in his cells after their removal, such that he could sue for conversion. The majority concluded that:

• California law did not recognize a continuing property interest in excised cells. Once removed, Moore’s cells were considered medical waste, not personal property.
• Recognizing such a property right would have far-reaching and potentially negative consequences for medical research, innovation, and the biotechnology industry.
• The court noted that hundreds of thousands of tissue samples are routinely used in research, and granting property rights to donors could hinder scientific progress.

Thus, Moore’s conversion claim was rejected.

Fiduciary Duty and Informed Consent

While denying Moore’s property claim, the court did find that Dr. Golde and the University had a fiduciary duty to disclose their research and economic interests in Moore’s cells. The court held:

• Physicians must fully inform patients about any personal interests that may affect their medical judgment.
• Failure to disclose such interests constitutes a breach of the duty of informed consent and fiduciary duty.

This aspect of the decision expanded the scope of required disclosures by physician-researchers in California.

Policy Considerations

The court balanced competing interests:

• Promoting scientific research and innovation: Recognizing patient property rights could create a “chilling effect” on research and the development of new therapies.
• Protecting patient autonomy and trust: Ensuring patients are fully informed and not exploited for financial gain.

For the full text of the opinion, see California Supreme Court: Moore v. Regents.

Concurring and Dissenting Opinions

Justice Broussard (Concurring and Dissenting)

Justice Broussard agreed with the majority that Moore’s conversion claim should fail, but disagreed with the reasoning. He emphasized that the court should have based its decision solely on public policy grounds rather than attempting to define property interests in human tissues.

Justice Mosk (Dissenting)

Justice Mosk dissented, arguing that Moore should have some property interest in his own excised cells, especially given the significant commercial value derived from them. Mosk warned that the majority’s decision left patients vulnerable to exploitation and failed to recognize the evolving nature of property law.

Broader Judicial Debate

The split opinions reflect the underlying tension between individual rights and societal interests in scientific progress. The dissenters highlighted the potential for patient exploitation, while the majority focused on the practicalities of medical research.

Implications for Law, Medicine, and Ethics

Impact on Biotechnology and Research

The Moore decision is widely regarded as a foundational case in biotechnology law. By refusing to recognize property rights in excised cells, the court cleared the way for universities, research institutions, and private companies to use human biological materials in research and product development without fear of conversion claims from donors.

This has enabled:

• The creation and patenting of human cell lines and genetic materials.
• The growth of the biotechnology industry.
• The development of new therapies and diagnostics.

However, it has also raised concerns about the commodification of the human body and the potential for exploitation.

Informed Consent and Fiduciary Duty

One of the most significant legal legacies of Moore is the expansion of informed consent requirements. Physician-researchers must now disclose not only medical risks, but also any personal or financial interests that may influence their professional judgment.

This duty is crucial for:

• Maintaining patient trust.
• Ensuring that consent is truly informed.
• Preventing conflicts of interest in research settings.

For more on informed consent, see the California Medical Board’s Guidelines.

Property Rights in Human Biological Materials

Moore’s rejection of property rights in excised tissues is not universal. Other jurisdictions and countries have taken different approaches, and the debate continues in legal and ethical circles.

Some key questions include:

• Should donors have a say in how their biological materials are used?
• Should they share in the profits from commercial products derived from their tissues?
• How do we balance individual autonomy with the public good?

For further reading, see the Yale Journal of Law & Technology analysis.

Ethical Considerations

The case has sparked ongoing debate about the ethics of using human tissues in research:

• Autonomy: Should patients control the fate of their tissues?
• Justice: Should patients share in the benefits of research?
• Transparency: How much do patients need to know before consenting to tissue use?

Moore is frequently cited in bioethics literature as an example of the challenges in balancing these competing values.

Ongoing Influence

Moore v. Regents is regularly cited in legal and academic discussions. It is a staple of law school curricula and is referenced in debates over biobanking, genetic research, and the commercialization of human biological materials.

For case briefs and further analysis, see Quimbee’s summary and Studicata’s case brief.

Comparative and International Perspectives

United States

The Moore decision has not been universally adopted across the U.S. Some states have statutes or case law that provide different levels of protection or recognition for individuals’ interests in their biological materials. The federal government, through the Common Rule and other regulations, emphasizes informed consent but does not recognize a property right in tissues.

International Approaches

Other countries have taken different stances:

• United Kingdom: The Human Tissue Act 2004 regulates the use of human tissues and requires consent for their use in research, but does not recognize property rights in excised tissues.
• Australia: The law is evolving, but generally follows the “no property” rule for excised tissues.
• European Union: The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) covers genetic data, emphasizing privacy and consent rather than property rights.

These approaches reflect ongoing debates about autonomy, privacy, and the commercialization of the human body.

Criticisms and Controversies

Patient Exploitation and Equity

Critics argue that Moore leaves patients vulnerable to exploitation, especially when their tissues lead to significant profits for others. The case is often cited in discussions of “bioprospecting” and “biopiracy”, where valuable genetic resources are taken from individuals or communities without fair compensation.

The Evolving Nature of Property

Some legal scholars believe the court’s refusal to recognize property rights in human tissues is outdated, given advances in biotechnology and the increasing value of genetic material. They argue for a more nuanced approach that recognizes limited property interests or at least a right to share in profits.

The Challenge of Informed Consent

While Moore expanded disclosure requirements, critics note that truly informed consent can be difficult to achieve in complex research settings. Patients may not fully understand the implications of donating tissues, especially when future uses are unknown.

Lessons for Attorneys and Researchers

For Attorneys

• Conversion Claims: Moore makes clear that conversion claims based on excised tissues are unlikely to succeed in California.
• Fiduciary Duty and Disclosure: Attorneys advising physician-researchers must ensure robust disclosure of financial and research interests to patients.
• Contractual Approaches: Some suggest that explicit contracts between patients and researchers may provide a better framework for addressing rights and interests in biological materials.

For Medical Professionals and Researchers

• Transparency: Full disclosure of research and economic interests is not just good practice—it is legally required.
• Consent Processes: Consent forms should be clear, comprehensive, and regularly updated to reflect current research practices.
• Ethical Considerations: Beyond legal compliance, researchers should consider the ethical implications of their work, including issues of justice, equity, and respect for patient autonomy.

For more legal research resources, visit Counsel Stack.

Conclusion

Moore v. Regents of the University of California remains a touchstone for understanding the legal and ethical landscape surrounding the use of human biological materials in research. The decision clarified that, in California, patients do not retain property rights in their excised tissues, but are entitled to robust disclosure of any personal or financial interests by their physicians. This balance between promoting scientific innovation and protecting patient autonomy continues to shape debates in law, medicine, and bioethics.

The case’s legacy is seen in ongoing discussions about biobanking, genetic research, and the commercialization of human tissues. As biotechnology advances, the questions raised by Moore will only become more pressing, requiring continued vigilance by attorneys, researchers, and policymakers.

For authoritative legal research and in-depth analysis, visit Counsel Stack.

Disclaimer: This guide provides a general overview of Moore v. Regents of the University of California and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. The case is complex and subject to ongoing legal and ethical debate. For specific questions or legal guidance, consult a qualified attorney or legal professional.