Moore is Less
By Osagie K. Obasogie and Helen Theung,
Stanford Technology Law Review
| 01. 15. 2013
Why the Development of Pluripotent Stem Cells Might Lead Us to Rethink Differential Property Interests in Excised Human Cells
Since Moore v. Regents of the University of California, there has been a wide-ranging debate regarding the holding of the case and its implications for property law. Moore stands for the notion that individuals do not have a property interest in ordinary cells taken from their bodies during medical procedures nor the commercial products that researchers might develop from them. At the same time, cases such as Davis v. Davis and Hecht v. Superior Court have asserted that individuals maintain a property interest in other types of cells—namely embryos and gametes (eggs and sperm)—once they are removed from the body. This, among other developments, has led to a fragmented regime in property law pertaining to excised biological materials that turns, in large part, on the type of cell in question: individuals have a diminished interest in regular somatic cells (skin, muscle, etc.) while courts have recognized that people retain a heightened property interest in reproductive cells such as sperm, eggs, and embryos. The articulated reason for the differential property interests in these two cell types is that embryos and gametes...
Related Articles
By Keith Casebonne and Jodi Beckstine [with CGS' Katie Hasson], Disability Deep Dive | 07.24.2025
In this episode of Disability Deep Dive, hosts Keith and Jodi explore the complex interplay between disability science, technology, and ethics with guest Katie Hasson, Associate Director at the Center for Genetics and Society. The conversation delves into...
By Angus Liu, Fierce Pharma | 07.22.2025
A brief skirmish between Sarepta Therapeutics and the FDA has ended before escalating into a full-on regulatory clash, as the company has bowed to the agency’s demand.
In a surprising reversal, Sarepta on Monday said it will pause all shipments...
By Lucy Tu, The Atlantic | 07.11.2025
Donald Trump—who is, by his own accounting, “the fertilization president” and “the father of IVF”—wants to help Americans reproduce. During his 2024 campaign, he promised that the government or insurance companies would cover the cost of in vitro fertilization. In...
By Jared Whitlock, Endpoints News | 07.15.2025
Patient groups face a harder and unpredictable path going state-by-state to boost screening for rare but treatable conditions after the Trump administration disbanded a federal advisory committee on newborn screening.
In April, the Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns...