Chapter 25: “Who Told You You Could Sell My Spleen?”
Much of the Moore story appears in court and government documents, particularly the
“Statement of John L. Moore Before the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight,”
House Committee on Science and Technology Hearings on the Use of Human Patient Materi-
als in the Development of Commercial Biomedical Products, October 29, 1985; John Moore v.
The Regents of the University of California et al. (249 Cal. Rptr. 494); and John Moore v. The
Regents of the University of California et al. (51 Cal.3d 120, 793 P.2d 479, 271 Cal. Rptr.
146).
The Mo-cell patent is no. 4,438,032, available at Patft.uspto.gov.
The literature regarding the Moore trial and its implications is vast. Some useful sources
include William J. Curran, “Scientific and Commercial Development of Human Cell Lines,”
New England Journal of Medicine 324, no. 14 (April 4, 1991); David W. Golde,
“Correspondence: Commercial Development of Human Cell Lines,” New England Journal of
Medicine, June 13, 1991; G. Annas, “Outrageous Fortune: Selling Other People’s Cells,” The
Hastings Center Report (November-December 1990); B. J. Trout, “Patent Law—A Patient
Seeks a Portion of the Biotechnological Patent Profits in Moore v. Regents of the University of
California,“ Journal of Corporation Law (Winter 1992); and G. B. White and K. W O’Connor,
“Rights, Duties and Commercial Interests: John Moore versus the Regents of the University of
California,” Cancer Investigation 8 (1990).
For a selection of media reports about the John Moore case, see Alan L. Otten,
“Researchers’ Use of Blood, Bodily Tissues Raises Questions About Sharing Profits,” Wall
Street Journal, January 29, 1996; “Court Rules Cells Are the Patient’s Property,” Science, Au-
gust 1988; Judith Stone, “Cells for Sale,” Discover, August 1988; Joan O’C. Hamilton, “Who
Told You You Could Sell My Spleen?” BusinessWeek, April 3, 1990; “When Science Outruns
Law,” Washington Post, July 13, 1990; and M. Barinaga, “A Muted Victory for the Biotech In-
dustry,” Science 249, no. 4966 (July 20, 1990).
For the regulatory response to the Moore case, see “U.S. Congressional Office of Techno-
logy Assessment, New Developments in Biotechnology: Ownership of Human Tissues and
Cells—Special Report,” Government Printing Office (March 1987); “Report on the Biotechno-
logy Industry in the United States: Prepared for the U.S. Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment,” National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce (May 1,
1987); and “Science, Technology and the Constitution,” U.S. Congressional Office of Techno-
logy Assessment (September 1987). See also the never-passed “Life Patenting Moratorium