DNA patenting: Implications for public health research

Bulletin of the World Health Organization

Volumn 84, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 388-392

  Dutfield, Graham ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DNA;

DNA; GENE; GENOMICS; HEALTH POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH PROGRAM;

ARTICLE; DNA SEQUENCE; ECONOMIC ASPECT; GENE SEQUENCE; GENOMICS; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; LAW; MEDICAL INFORMATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; PUBLISHING;

BASE SEQUENCE; GENOME, HUMAN; HUMANS; PATENTS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH; RESEARCH;

EID: 33646475771     PISSN: 00429686     EISSN: 15640604     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2471/BLT.06.030296     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Mattick JS. The hidden genetic program of complex organisms. Scientific American 2004;291:30-7.
2. Quoted in Gibbs WW.The unseen genome: gems among the junk. Scientific American 2003;289:26-33.
3. Krimsky S. Risk assessment and regulation of bioengineered food products. Int J Biotechnol 2000;2:231-8.
4. Dutfield G, Suthersanen U. DNA music: intellectual property and the law of unintended consequences. Sci Stud 2005;18:5-29.
5. Heller MA, Eisenberg RS. Can patents deter innovation? the anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998;280:698-701.
6. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Utility examination guidelines. Federal Register 2001;66:1092-99. Also available from: http://www.uspto. gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf
7. Paradise J, Andrews L, Holbrook T. Patents on human genes: an analysis of scope and claims Science 2005;307:156-67.
8. World Health Organization. Genomics and world health. Report of the Advisory Committee on Health Research. Geneva: WHO; 2002. p. 135-40.
9. Aldhous P. Patent battle could hold up tests for cancer gene. New Scientist 1996;149:8.
10. Brown P, Kleiner K. Patent row splits breast cancer researchers. New Scientist 1994;143:4.
11. Ernhofer K. Who really owns your genes? Christian Science Monitor 27 Feb, 2003.
12. Henley J. Cancer unit fights US gene patent. The Guardian 8 Sept 2001.
13. Krimsky S. Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research? Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003. p. 67-8.
14. Meek J. US firm may double cost of UK cancer checks. The Guardian 17 Jan 2000.
15. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA: A Discussion Paper. London: Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002: 39-42.
16. National Academies of Science, Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP), and Committee on Science, Technology, and Law (STL). (2005) Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington DC: NAS; 2005.
17. Howlett MJ, Christie AF. An analysis of the approach of the European, Japanese and United States patent offices to patenting partial DNA sequences (ESTs). University of Melbourne Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper 2004;82.
18. Merz JF, Kriss AG, Leonard DG, Cho MK. Diagnostic testing fails the test. Nature 2002;415:577-9.
19. Shorett P, Krimsky S, editors. Rights and Liberties in the Biotech Age: Why we need a Genetic Bill of Rights. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield; 2005.
20. Dutfield G. Biotechnology and IPRs in Europe. In Jensen A, Pugatch M, editors. Intellectual Property Frontiers: Expanding the Borders of Discussion. London: Stockholm Network; 2005. p. 49-50.
21. Palombi L. The genetic sequence right: a sui generis alternative to the patenting of biological materials. Paper presented at the Queen Mary University of London Patenting Lives Conference, December 2005.
22. Venter JC, Adams MD, Myers EW, Li PW, Mural RJ, Sutton GG, et al. The sequence of the human genome. Science 2001;291:1304-51.
23. Shachtman N. A good sequence, easy to dance to. Wired News, May 21, 2002.