IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jknowl/v9y2018i2d10.1007_s13132-015-0346-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techno-borne Organs: Medical, Legal, and Policy Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Naira R. Matevosyan

    (New European Surgical Academy
    Seton Hall University School of Law)

Abstract

Techno-borne organs (TBO) are promising organ-repair strategies in a broad spectrum of terminal diseases. Their benefit/risk ratio is debated in medical, legal, and religious circles. An attempt was made to elucidate risks and advantages in implication of the TBO. Findings suggest that the TBO, created from either autologous, syngenic or isogenic cells, is an auspicious frontier that eliminates risks associated to the traditional transplantation of the donor organs: incompatibility, transplant failure, long waiting lists, health insurance constraints, fraud, conspiracy, and increasing number of lawsuits. On the other hand, the TBO emerge with specific disadvantages. Medical risks are associated with the cell-scaffold interactions, TBO’s sterility and the potential to replicate in vivo. New parametric standards are necessary to determine the TBO transplant’s success or failure. Regulatory issues include the Coordinating Committee’s current federal oversight limited for the commercial products. Rejoining of the NSF and NIH to the Coordination Committee would help expand the regulations to assess scientific novelty and upstream. Potential legal issues may include TBO patentability (matter, process, nonobviousness, novelty), patient’s substantive due process rights of bodily integrity and TBO ownership under the 14th Amendment, advance directives for autopsy of a TBO carrier, and the extent of publishing an invention - a shared property between the scientist and the patient.

Suggested Citation

  • Naira R. Matevosyan, 2018. "Techno-borne Organs: Medical, Legal, and Policy Concerns," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(2), pages 544-560, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:9:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-015-0346-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s13132-015-0346-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13132-015-0346-4
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13132-015-0346-4?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Endy, 2005. "Foundations for engineering biology," Nature, Nature, vol. 438(7067), pages 449-453, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simeon D. Castle & Michiel Stock & Thomas E. Gorochowski, 2024. "Engineering is evolution: a perspective on design processes to engineer biology," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-10, December.
    2. Torgersen, Helge & Bogner, Alexander & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2013. "The Power of Framing in Technology Governance: The Case of Biotechnologies (ITA-manu:script 13-01)," ITA manu:scripts 13_01, Institute of Technology Assessment (ITA).
    3. Chih-Yuan Hsu & Bor-Sen Chen, 2016. "Systematic Design of a Metal Ion Biosensor: A Multi-Objective Optimization Approach," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-16, November.
    4. VAN DEN OORD, Ad & VAN WITTELOOSTUIJN, Arjen & DUYSTERS, Geert & GILSING, Victor, 2010. "The ecology of technology: An empirical study of US biotechnology patents from 1976 to 2003," ACED Working Papers 2010008, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    5. Mario A Marchisio & Jörg Stelling, 2011. "Automatic Design of Digital Synthetic Gene Circuits," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-13, February.
    6. T. Kuiken & G. Dana & K. Oye & D. Rejeski, 2014. "Shaping ecological risk research for synthetic biology," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 4(3), pages 191-199, September.
    7. Nylund, Petra A. & Ferràs-Hernández, Xavier & Pareras, Luis & Brem, Alexander, 2022. "The emergence of entrepreneurial ecosystems based on enabling technologies: Evidence from synthetic biology," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 728-735.
    8. Ovidiu Lipan & Jean-Marc Navenot & Zixuan Wang & Lei Huang & Stephen C Peiper, 2007. "Heat Shock Response in CHO Mammalian Cells Is Controlled by a Nonlinear Stochastic Process," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(10), pages 1-12, October.
    9. Ernst Weber & Jörg Birkenfeld & Jürgen Franz & Uwe Gritzan & Lars Linden & Mark Trautwein, 2017. "Modular Protein Expression Toolbox (MoPET), a standardized assembly system for defined expression constructs and expression optimization libraries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, May.
    10. Lorenzo Pasotti & Nicolò Politi & Susanna Zucca & Maria Gabriella Cusella De Angelis & Paolo Magni, 2012. "Bottom-Up Engineering of Biological Systems through Standard Bricks: A Modularity Study on Basic Parts and Devices," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(7), pages 1-10, July.
    11. Featherston, Charles R. & Ho, Jae-Yun & Brévignon-Dodin, Laure & O'Sullivan, Eoin, 2016. "Mediating and catalysing innovation: A framework for anticipating the standardisation needs of emerging technologies," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 25-40.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:jknowl:v:9:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s13132-015-0346-4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.