Facts: -P sought treatent for hairy cell leu!eia" #as tol$ his con$ition #as life threatening an$ that he nee$e$ his s%leen reove$. & $i$ not tell hi that his cells #ere uni'ue an$ that they hel$ scientific an$ coercial value. & $evelo%e$ a cell line" calle$ the Mo cell line" receive$ a %atent an$ entere$ into coercial agreeents. - P sue$ for $aages" stating in his co%laint several causes of action inclu$ing conversion (the & too! his cells" #hich #ere his %ersonal %ro%erty" #ithout his %erission). P lost at trial court on the groun$s that" although the allegations #ere true" he faile$ to state a legal clai. (he a%%ellate court reverse$. )ssue: *re e+cise$ cells a!in to %ro%erty to the e+tent that %ro%erty rights a%%ly to the, Reasoning: -(here is no case %rece$ent su%%orting P-s %ro%osition that the unauthori.e$ use of huan cells is conversion. -)n or$er to esta/lish conversion" the P ust sho# an interference #ith his 0o#nershi% or right of %ossession.1 -P $i$ not e+%ect to retain %ossession of his cells" therefore" he ust %rove that he aintaine$ an o#nershi% interest in the. -)t is unli!ely that Moore aintaine$ this interest /ecause such interests are liite$ /y statute. -2tatutes relating to the $is%osal of organs are ore relevant an$ ore authoritative on this issue" than is the la# of conversion. -P-s reliance on un#ante$ %u/licity cases is unconvincing /ecause 0only %ro%erty can /e converte$1 an$" unli!e one-s %ersona" the genetic aterial the &s use$ in their research #as not uni'ue to Moore. 3But I thought Moores cells were unique and thats why the Ds wanted them!4 -* $octor-s fi$uciary-$uty to his %atient" an$ the $uty of infore$ consent are sufficient to %rotect against invasions of huan %rivacy an$ $ignity. -* C* statute re'uiring the $is%osal of /iological #aste liits the uses of e+cise$ cells to the %oint that #hatever a %atient is left #ith cannot /e %ro%erty. -Moore cannot o#n the cell line /ecause it is a %atente$ invention. Policy Rationales: -Uncertainty a/out the o#nershi% of e+cise$ cells #ill $iscourage e$ical researchers #ho are 0engage$ in socially useful activities.1 3Certainty v. Fairness4 -5+ten$ing conversion lia/ility to researchers #ill 0$estroy the econoic incentive to con$uct i%ortant e$ical research.1 3This sounds like !4 6ol$ing: 5+cise$ cells are not %ro%erty an$ the tort of conversion $oes not a%%ly. Concurrence (*ra/ian): -(his case has serious oral raifications. -*llo#ing a tort of conversion #oul$ un$erine huan $ignity an$ create a 0ar!et%lace in /o$y %arts.1 Moore v. Regents of the University of California (1990) -(he 7egislature" not the courts" shoul$ a$$ress this issue" %erha%s /y creating a 0licensing schee.1 3"o he is really o#$ecting to %ree market transactions o% #ody &arts' #ut not to com&ensating &eo&le %or those &arts' &er se.4 &issent (Mos!): -Pro%erty is a /un$le of rights #ith the conse'uence that %articular rights can /e ta!en a#ay" /ut o#ner still has %ro%erty. -Moore ha$ the right to $o #ith his cells #hatever the &s ha$ the right to $o. -(he &-s actions are tantaount to slavery /ecause they are e+%ro%riating the P-s /o$y for their o#n %ersonal gain. -&enying the P any rights to the cell line is un8ust an$ ioral" %articularly #hen the P is not on e'ual footing #ith the &. -(he a8ority i%ro%erly cites to statutory authority: the U*9* $oes not e+%licitly %rohi/it the sale of e+cise$ tissue for research. -(he non-$isclosure cause of action is not a$e'uate to a$$ress this situation /ecause: (1) the %laintiff ust eet a very high /ur$en of %roof: (;) the C<* #ill only allo# a %atient to say no to treatent" /ut not to say yes to a share of the %rofits fro coerciali.ation: an$ (=) the %atient #ill only /e a/le to sue his $octor.