About Expert

Key Topics
Choose the case "Greenberg v. Miami Children’s Research Institute" and discuss it in terms of the property rights of the individual, the researcher, and the public commons.
The research conducted by Dr. Matalon at the University of Chicago with the treatment of Canavan disease is mainly done for identifying the reason for the reason which afflicting the children of eastern and central European (Greenfield et al., 2006). The samples are taken by the children who are suffering from Canavan disease. So the samples of tissues that are taken by the researchers for conducting the research is individual property which cannot be used to sell the license because it considers as the misappropriation of trade secrets and the researchers will obtain economic advantage from the tissue samples of an individual. According to property law, the private property of an individual cannot be used for consumption and subject to the general interest. The legal person shall not be deprived of their possession unless it's of public interest and the subject to the condition which is provided by law. The researchers are also providing the license by charging royalty fees without informing patients and financial supporters which come under lack of informed consent (Oberdorfer et al., 2004).
Human subject research is defined as the research which involves human beings. The medical research can be done by the researcher, and a similar study can be conducted by the researchers to find the distinct results so the previous study can be used as the secondary data which helps to conduct the research successfully. So the licensing of research conducted by Dr. Matalon is breaching fiduciary duty because they are not acting in the best interest of another party and they are rather working for their own interest by selling the license with royalty fee. The samples taken from the patients on whom the research is conducted can be varied from one patient to another which comes under conversion so another research by the researchers is required to analyze the findings on Canavan's disease so the license should be abolished because it is related to the health of society which is a topic of public interest.
The disease is a subject of public interest because it affects the community as a whole. The research must be shared equally because the disease can afflict any children in the country. The findings must be shared with the public which helps to support the health index of a country. So the research cannot be licensed, and it must be shared with the public. The information can be accessed by an individual easily through media, newspapers, and others. The legal restriction must not be implied in such information. The information related to health comes under public commons, and it cannot be owned privately. The research conducted by Dr. Matalon on Canavan's disease is a topic of public commons so the license must not be implemented on it (Andrews et al., 2005).
Andrews, L. B., & Paradise, J. (2005). Gene patents: the need for bioethics scrutiny and legal change. Yale J. Health Poly L. & Ethics, 5, 403.
Greenfield, D. L. (2006). Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital: Unjust enrichment and the patenting of human genetic material. Annals Health L., 15, 213.
Oberdorfer, K. L. (2004). Lessons of Greenberg: Informed Consent and the Protection of Tissue Sources' Research Interests, The. Geo. LJ, 93, 365.