254 
Monitoring Stem Cell Research 
breakthroughs. For example, we patent embryonic stem cell lines, 
thereby insuring massive profits for patent holders, while decrying 
the commodification of embryonic life. Knowles is correct that there 
is a tension between our profit-based medical research model and 
our commitment to altruism and the access to health care that a 
commitment to justice demands. Adult stem cell research, of course, 
raises very similar issues, because the same tension exists between 
the need for proprietary control of technology and the need for 
affordable access. For example, patents have been sought and 
granted for human adult stem cells work as well as for embryonic 
stem cell technologies. According to a study on the patenting of 
inventions related to stem cell research commissioned by the 
European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies, as of 
October 2001, two thousand twenty-nine patents were applied or 
granted for stem cells and 512 patents were applied or granted for 
embryonic stem cell work (Van Overwalle, 2002, 23; see also McGee 
and Banger, 2002). As a result, access to therapies developed from 
adult stem cell research is likely to be as serious an issue as access 
to embryonic stem cell therapies. 
Indeed, issues arising from commodification of both adult and 
embryonic stem cells are likely to dominate the next phase of the 
debate, if only because corporate interest in this work, both 
nationally and internationally, is so strong (Hill, 2003). Noting that, 
as of 2002, “a dozen biotech companies have entered the stem cell 
industry and have invested millions of dollars," David Resnik 
suggests that the next stage of the stem cell debate will involve a 
battle over property rights relating to stem cells (Resnik, 2002, 130- 
31). 
To be sure, the battle over property rights raises important legal 
and policy question, but it also raises ethical questions as well. For 
example, Resnik provides the following table of possible ethical 
objections to patenting stem cells. 
Deontological Objections to 
Property Rights in ES cells 
Consequentialist Objections 
to Property Rights in ES cells 
ES cells (and their products) 
should not be treated as 
property; they should be viewed 
as having inherent dignity or 
respect. 
Treating ES cells as property whll 
have dire social consequences, 
such as exploitation, destruction 
of altruism, and loss of respect for 
the value of human life. 
PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION 
