Features of Institutions of Informed Consent and Property Rights in Legal Regulation of Relations Related to Human Biological Material

The paper analyzes the legal regulation of relations that are developing regarding human biological material, in particular issues concerning property rights. Some examples of foreign judicial practice have been studied in detail, which allow the authors to assess the process of formation of international and national legislation regulating these relations. The author examines aspects of the legal regulation of biobanks’ activities regarding storage, transfer and disposal of human biological material, as well as obtaining informed consent. The question is raised about the need to differentiate legal regulation in connection with the competition between the ownership of human biological materials between the right to privacy and personality. It is concluded that it is necessary to find a balance taking into account the increase in logistical possibility of obtaining and transferring biological material, including international transfer, as well as peculiarities of obtaining genetic and genomic information, exchange and dissemination of research results and internationalization of research.

1. Venediktov A. V. Gosudarstvennaya sotsialisticheskaya sobstvennost. — M., L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1948.

2. Venediktov A. V. Pravo gosudarstvennoy sotsialisticheskoy sobstvennosti// Voprosy sovetskogo grazhdanskogo prava. — M., L., 1945.

3. Gegel G. V. F. Filosofiya prava. — M., 1990.

4. Russkaya filosofiya sobstvennosti XVIII–XX vv.: cbornik. — SPb.: Ganza, 1993.

5. Sklovskiy K. I. Sobstvennost v grazhdanskom prave. — M.: Delo, 2000.

6. Sukhanov E. A. Pravo sobstvennosti v grazhdanskom kodekse // Zakon. — 1995. — № 11.

7. Chicherin B. N. Filosofiya prava. — SPb.: Nauka, 1998.

8. Bailey E. Wilson Signs Bill Making Theft of Human Eggs a Crime // LA Times. — September 26, 1996.

9. Belisle J. Recognizing a Quasi-Property Right in Biomaterials // UC Irvine Law Review. — 2013. — Vol. 3. — No. 3. — P. 767–799.

10. Harmon A. Indian Tribe Wins Fight to Limit Research of Its DNA // New York Times. — April 21, 2010.

11. Javitt G. Why Not Take All of Me? Reflections on the Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks and the Status of Participants in Research Using Human Specimens // Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. — 2010. — Vol. 11. — No. 2. — P. 713–754.

12. Kunst A. E. Socioeconomic inequalities in health in Central and Eastern Europe: synthesis of results of eight new studies // Int J Public Health. — 2009. — No. 54. — P. 7197–200.

13. Lewis M. H. et al. State Laws Regarding the Retention and Use of Residual Newborn Screening Blood Samples // Pediatrics. — 2011. — Vol. 127. — No. 4. — P. 703–712.

14. Rao R. Coercion, Commercialization, and Commodification: The Ethics of Compensation for Egg Donors in Stem Cell Research // Berkeley Technology Law Journal. — 2006. — Vol. 1. — No. 3. — P. 1055–1066.

15. Roazzi P., Benedetto C. D., Bravo E., D’Agnolo G. Biobank Networking: The European Network Initiative and the Italian Participation // Biopreserv Biobank. — 2001. — No. 9. — P. 175–179.

16. Suter S. Did You Give the Government Your Baby’s DNA? Rethinking Consent in Newborn Screening // Minnesota Journal of Health Law, Science & Technology. — 2014. — Vol. 15. — No. 2. — P. 729–790.

17. Tindana P., Depuur C., Vries J. de, Seeley J., Parker M. Informed consent in genomic research and biobanking: taking feedback of findings seriously // Global Bioethics. — 2020. — No. 31. — P. 200–215. — URL: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/11287462.2020.1717896.