UCLA faculty and students shouted playfully at each other
Thursday while debating the issue of compensation for human tissue
given for stem cell research after a lecture on the topic given by
UCLA law Professor Russell Korobkin.
In his lecture, which is part of a larger stem cell colloquium
hosted by the UCLA Center for Society and Genetics, Korobkin argued
against what he called “a developing consensus in the
scientific policy community … that no cash or in-kind payments
should be made to tissue donors.”
Korobkin said he opposed the opinion of the National Research
Council, as well as Proposition 71, which forbids cash or other
compensation for human tissue donations used in stem cell
research.
While compensation is currently permissible for tissues used in
in-vitro fertilization and for blood donations, ethical questions
remain about whether compensation should be given in exchange for
tissue used in stem cell research.
Korobkin argued that given past instances of compensation for
tissue donations outside of research settings, it should also be
allowed within the context of stem cell research.
“I find it very implausible that for tissues that require
… any reasonable amount of risk that there are going to be a lot
of altruists out there,” Korobkin said. “The only way
to do it is going to be price.”
But his position met some opposition among those present at the
lecture.
Alyssa Schabloski, who said she has been involved in researching
and fact-checking for a book Korobkin is co-writing on the topic,
said she was uncomfortable with cash payment for human tissue.
“The reason people don’t want compensation is
because they don’t want it to be coercive,” Schabloski
said, meaning that with cash payments it may seem that researchers
are taking advantage of those in need of money. “(Such
compensation) will be hugely, hugely coercive for many low-income,
socio-economically disadvantaged people,” she said.
Schabloski also said she feared that with compensation
“you lose everything that’s good about
altruism.”
During his lecture, Korobkin addressed the concerns of advocates
of noncompensation and attempted to systematically disprove
them.
Stuart Schweitzer, a professor of health economics in the UCLA
School of Public Health, commended Korobkin on his presentation of
what Schweitzer called “a contentious issue.”
“(Korobkin) presented a very strong argument, that
there’s a market response that could help in this particular
area,” Schweitzer said.
Others at the lecture challenged Korobkin’s argument,
though they said they still supported his conclusion.
“My question was about how he framed the argument, not
that I necessarily disagree with his point,” said Steven
Peckman, associate director for administration and planning at the
UCLA Institute for Stem Cell Biology and Medicine.
“I think (donors) should be compensated,” Peckman
added.
The issue of compensation for tissue donations for research
purposes does not have clear legal precedents, Korobkin said.
Though a proponent of legalizing donor compensation, Korobkin
said he supported establishing a legal default rule stating that
donors should not receive compensation unless an explicit
compensation agreement is made.
Lecture attendees said the topic had practical applications in
various fields.
Schweitzer, whose specialty is not in stem cell research, said
he attended because he was interested in how genetics will change
health systems.
And Eli Halavi, a third-year business economics student, said he
heard about the lecture from his speech class professor, adding
that they would likely debate the issue in class next week.