Arguably the most famous genetic material in the world, the HeLa cell line, propagated using a tissue sample obtained from a tumor growing in Henrietta Lacks’ cervix in 1951, provided researchers with a tool that propelled cellular research into the future and continues to enable countless medical advances.  HeLa, named from the first two letters of the human subject’s given name and her surname, was cultured at Johns Hopkins where surgeons obtained the sample.  Doctor George Otto Gey, whose own novel innovations converted Henrietta’s cells into the surviving cell culture named HeLa, distributed the groundbreaking cell line freely throughout the medical community.  However, facilities began bulk manufacturing HeLa, and the Lacks family was approached regarding the opportunity to sue for a portion of the monetary gain made possible by Henrietta’s “immortal” cells.

 

Henrietta was unaware a tissue sample was taken for the research lab, and medical facilities were under no obligation to obtain permission at this time.  Further, absent widespread curiosity which led to the release of the name of the patient behind the cell line, Henrietta’s children would have remained unaware of their mothers’ significant posthumous contribution to medicine.  Today, releasing her name would be considered highly unethical due to surviving family members’ confidential medical information being encoded into the HeLa DNA.

 

At the beginning of this month, Thermo Fisher, sued by the Lacks family on the theory of unjust enrichment, agreed to a settlement with Henrietta’s surviving family members for an undisclosed amount.  Lacks v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., 1:21-cv-02524, (D. Maryland).  Lacking even an initial decision regarding the question of statute of limitations prior to settlement, the future of legal standing for persons harvested of genetic material that proves highly valuable to the medical community is uncertain.

 

One other noteworthy conflict over the Mo cell line was decided by the California Supreme Court in favor of patient John Moore.  Moore v. Regents of University of California, 793 P.2d 479 (Cal. 1990).  However, the Court sided with Moore based on his physician’s failure to obtain proper consent.  Thus, other legal considerations, such as the legality of patenting a cell line derived from an individual’s cellular material without consent or compensation, the lawfulness of financially benefitting from a popular cell line without compensating the source of genetic material, and the legal bounds of patient consent for biologic sample use (opt out, limitations to scope of use, etc.) are left open for another day.

 

For further information:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/henriettalacks/

http://henriettalacksfoundation.org/

“The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks” by Rebecca Skloot (2010)