Assignment #14

    Doctors at UCLA removed John Moore's spleen, standard treatment for his type of leukemia, and the disease did not recur.  Researchers kept the spleen cells alive in a nutrient medium.  They found that some of them produced a blood protein that showed promise as a treatment for cancer and AIDS.  The researchers patented the cells.  Moore sued claiming a share in profits from any products derived from his cells.  The California Supreme Court ruled against Moore (and the U.S. Supreme Court agreed), stating that the suit "threaten to destroy the economic incentive to conduct important medical research".  Moore argued that the ruling left patients "vulnerable to exploitation at the hands of the state".

    1) Do you think Moore was treated fairly?  Why or why not?

    2) Is there anything else you would like to know about this case that might help you decide?