How Much is Your Tissue Worth?

It's been compared to prostitution, but selling your cells for research might prevent the development of a black market for tissue, Trumbull High School debaters argued recently.

In front of an audience of all ages in the , Debate Team Member John Bui and President Heather Dahlin opened the debate arguing in favor of the statement, "Patients should be remunerated when their genetic material is used for research that produces profit."

It was part of the Library's "One Book, One Town" program, which studied Henrietta Lacks, whose hardy cancer cells harvested in the 1950s were and are still used to advance cancer research. Her family has not been paid for their use.

Bui cited the 1990 California Supreme Court decision against John Moore, whose cancerous cells were developed into a profitable commercial line.

"The California Court was wrong on this issue. Parts were not only used for the human good, but the profit of the researchers," he said. "While there may have been a benefit, at what point will these courts stop?"

Dahlin said because government pays homeowners when their homes are taken under eminent domain, cell donors should be compensated.

But Vishakha Negi and Ariana Rick argued cells and body parts are not property, under common law.

Discarded cancer cells like Moore's are not property, Negi said.

"Scientists didn't expect to extract a reservoir of HeLa cells," she said of Lacks, adding that people whose cells are used for science should seek the greater good, not profit.

"The human body is too beautiful to be priced a commodity would," she added.

Rick also opposed a regulatory body that would oversee tissue use and compensation, because, she said, it is difficult to pin a value on human parts.

Then Paul Angelucci rebutted. "Without these cells, the scientists" would not have made progress, he said.

Shyamsundar  Subramanian said paying donors would not eat into the millions of dollars drug companies make annually.

Dan Flaherty and Anurag Chinepalli argued that it's already difficult to get commercial lines of tissue for research without paying them, in addition to the high costs of research and development.

"Out of 200 [ideas], only one may hit the shelves and be profitable," Chinepalli said. An audience member noted that Pfizer has closed 1/3 of its offices.

He later added that researchers do the work and develop the drugs, while the patient has not done any work to donate the cells.

Regarding the proposal to regulate tissue and organ issues, Bui noted, "organs cannot be sold in this country."

Congress, he added, has not taken action on human tissue trade.

In any case, more people will be using the healthcare system in the coming years, and any monetary losses will be recouped by the volume of patients served, Dahlin said.

At issue were basic philosophical questions, such as how equal are cells and how to determine the magnitude of a discovery. Finally, one asked, "Time is money, but how much is it?"

Still, the proponents for compensation argued that payment would create an effective incentive for more tissue donations.