January 22, 2008

University Owns Disputed Tissue Samples, Supreme Court Says

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld lower-court decisions that human cancer tissue collected by a former researcher at Washington University in St. Louis belongs to the university, not the researcher.

The justices today let stand district-court and appellate-court rulings that had sided with the university. As is customary, the court did not issue a ruling or otherwise explain its action.

The former Washington University researcher, William J. Catalona, had argued that the samples he collected from thousands of patients belonged to him. He moved to Northwestern University in 2003.

Washington University filed the lawsuit after thousands of Dr. Catalona’s patients asked that their tissues be sent to Dr. Catalona. The lower courts ruled that the tissues belonged to Washington University and that the patients had relinquished their rights to the tissue.

In a written statement, the university said the court’s action would “protect donors from unregulated and potentially conflicting solicitations for their donated tissues.” —Katherine Mangan

Comments

1. As a patient of Dr. Catalona’s whose tissue samples I entrusted to HIM, I am incredibly disappointed by this decision. I plan to tell Barnes Jewish Hospital and Washington University that if Dr. Catalona can’t have them I would like them returned.
   Signed, Disgusted.

   — Roger    Jan 22, 03:35 PM    #

2. Contrary to the Chronicle’s headline, the Supreme Court did not say that the university owned the tissue. Rather, it declined to hear the case. The Court has discretion is choosing which cases to decide. It turns down hundreds—perhaps thousands—every year. A turn-down does indicate approval or disapproval of the lower court decision.

   — luigi    Jan 22, 04:04 PM    #

3. This seems like an appropriate outcome to me. When you’re involved in research supported by the institution, then the materials used in that reaserch are the institution’s, not yours.

   — Al    Jan 22, 06:11 PM    #

4. When a researcher works for a college or university, the tissue does not belong to the researcher, it belongs to the employer, i.e., the University. The researcher is hired and paid by his/her employer. It is common sense.

   — kvc    Jan 22, 09:52 PM    #

5. But who owns your blood sample? Who owns the genetic information that can be obtained from that sample? Your genetic information is the essence of who you are… so does wash u own that?

   — sp    Jan 22, 11:10 PM    #

6. sp – If you give your blood sample to Wash U, after signing a consent form authorizing Wash U to use your blood sample for research, then the answer is : Yes, Wash U does own it.

   As the article points out, Bill Catalona originally argued that the blood samples belonged to HIM, not the patients. He only changed his arguments, and pretended to be concerned about patients’ rights, after it was clear that he would get nowhere with that argument.

   He was an employee of Wash U. He collected the samples as an employee of Wash U, with Wash U staff, etc. He wanted to leave Wash U and take it all with him. He was wrong, and he then tried to hide behind his patients – a select group of them, at least. It should be noted that many of the research participants were NOT Bill’s patients, or were also seen by other physicians at Wash U.

   Judge Limbaugh heard arguments from both sides, as did the Appeals court, and concluded that Wash U is right. The Supreme Court wisely refused to overturn their decisions.

   — sharon    Jan 23, 12:42 AM    #

7. Washington University in St. Louis and the USA Supreme Court just sent back science in the States 100 years. It is hard enough to get patients to donated tisue and bilogical samples to top notch research groups, not to universities and companies. What it will take is for some NEWLY FOUNDED Universities and Research Institutes Founded and Completely owned by the academics and researchers to do the research. Otherwises university administrtators, companies and universities will claim ownership of not only all fo the IP, but also the samples. First is was exploit foreign graduate students and postdocs, and now even our top researchers and academics. As if university administrators or company executives know anything about research and/or science. It is time that acadmics, researchers and scientists go to the public and philantorpists and break the connectiion to the administrators and for profit companies.

   — KJJ    Jan 23, 04:36 AM    #

8. In the future any one who donates any samples and even money, they should specifically state to whom and for what purposes. If you want to give to specific researcher, and make sure that the sample go with him/her should he/she move to either another universitiy or researche institute, than you should write that specifially and make sure you are provided a copy of the modified informed consent form. Note that a lot of research is funded by NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD, ... and not actually the universities from the recurring budgets. In some cases the granting agencies allow the researchers who win the grants to negotiate with their respective universities. Hence all of our young academics should be educated and trained to negotiate with their host instittuions. Many academics have negotiated such that their samples and equipment go with them. At other universities, like WVU, the person shreds the documents when he leaves (Coach Rodriquez before he left for Ann Arbor, case to be settled probably in court).

   — KJJ    Jan 23, 04:52 AM    #

9. OK, KJJ- If you or Bill Catalona want to set up your own university and play by those rules, that’s fine. But until then, if you are an employee of Wash U, or any other university, you play by their rules when working for them.

   This is the issue that Bill’s supporters keep ignoring: he was an EMPLOYEE of Wash U.

   — sharon    Jan 23, 08:23 AM    #

10. This is a real life example of issues explored fictionally in Michael Crichton’s novel “Next”. An interesting read…

    — Jack Steehler    Jan 23, 11:04 AM    #

11. The University is “owned” by the institution funding the project. If the project was funded by say the NIH and the study is in progress the funding and all samples must go with the investigator. If the project is no longer in progress the University owns the samples but must under law provide these resources to the pursuant of further studies with these samples.

    — Josh Basford    Jan 23, 11:19 AM    #

12. Luigi’s observation is important. The CHE should correct: “upheld” is mistaken.

    — Rickjp    Jan 23, 12:36 PM    #

13. Un Wash, Northwestern U and Dr. Catalona should come to a mutual agreement for the benefit of science and future health. That has been the aim of scientific researh. Profit, credits or monetary inclusive, should be shared by all including patients who donated their tissues.

    — harold h lee    Jan 23, 07:27 PM    #

14. Harold –
    Wash U tried to reach an agreement. See the following at
    http://prostatecure.wustl.edu :

    “Why not split the samples between WU and Catalona?

    The University attempted to negotiate a split of the samples with Dr. Catalona, but as we neared a settlement, he backed away from it and asserted that all the samples should be under his sole control. Later, Dr. Catalona changed his position again and asserted that the donors retained control over their samples and could redirect them to him. We believe the research consent forms the donors signed give the samples to Washington University.”

    So there.

    — Zachary    Jan 23, 11:33 PM    #

15. This article from the New York Times Magazine tells the whole story about the Catalona case, and the others before it: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/magazine/16tissue.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

    — PW    Jan 25, 07:51 AM    #

16. PW – I think that Skloot’s article in the Times is very one-sided. She pretty much repeats Bill Catalona’s arguments verbatim.

    While this is not relevant to the legal issue of ownership, the way that Bill Catalona solicited patients to sign over their samples to him is really disturbing. For someone who pretends to care about patients’ rights, he showed little interest in following procedures designed to make sure patients have informed consent. He did not get IRB approval, and he sent patients a one-sided ‘authorization form’ which suggested that transferring samples to him was necessary for their future care.

    Judge Limbaugh noted this, with a strong disapproval, in his decision.
    See page 26 of Judge Limbaugh’s decision at http://prostatecure.wustl.edu

    — Zachary    Jan 26, 10:04 AM    #

Previous: Supreme Court Rejects Enron Investors' Appeal
Next: Decades of Neglect in Energy Research Will Be Hard to Reverse, Report Says