Disease genes are not patentable: A rebuttal of McGee

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 1998, Pages 425-428

  Merz, Jon F ^a   Cho, Mildred K ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETIC DISORDER; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HUMAN; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL GENETICS; NOTE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATENT; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT;

ETHICS, MEDICAL; GENETIC DISEASES, INBORN; GENETICS, MEDICAL; HUMANS; OWNERSHIP; PATENTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; TRUTH DISCLOSURE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032159981     PISSN: 09631801     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0963180198004149     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948).
2. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308-9 (1980).
3. Merz JF, Cho MK, Robertson MJ, Leonard, DGB. Disease gene patenting is a bad innovation. Molecular Diagnosis 1997;2(4):299-304.
4. Public Law 104-208, §101(a), 110 Stat 3009-67, 104th Congress, 2nd term, 1996, codified at U.S. Code Title 35 §287(c) (1997).
5. Congressional Record S12023-4 (30 September 1996).
6. Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act, codified at U.S. Code Title 42 §263a (1997).
7. Thomas SM, Birtwistle NJ, Brady M, Burke JF. Public-sector patents on human DNA. Nature 1997;388:709.
8. Eichenwald K. Push for royalties threatens use of Down Syndrome test. New York Times 1997;May 23:A1.