Defining the spectrum of genome policy

Nature Reviews Genetics

Volumn 7, Issue 12, 2006, Pages 966-972

  Haga, Susanne B ^a   Willard, Huntington F ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; GENOMICS; LEGAL ASPECT; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RESEARCH; REVIEW; SOCIAL ASPECT;

ADVISORY COMMITTEES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FINANCIAL SUPPORT; GENOME, HUMAN; HEALTH POLICY; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; HUMANS; POLICY MAKING; PUBLIC HEALTH;

EID: 33845337306     PISSN: 14710056     EISSN: 14710064     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrg2003     Document Type: Review

References (95)

1. Ziman, J. Public understanding of science. Sci. Technol. Human Values 16, 99-91 (1991).
2. Sturgis, P. & Allum, N. Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst. Sci. 13, 55-74 (2004).
3. Gaskell, G., Allum, N. & Stares, S. Europeans and biotechnology 2002. A report to the EC Directorate General for Research from the project 'Life Sciences in European Society' [online], 〈http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_177_en.pdf〉 (2003).
4. Pardo, R.., Midden, C. & Miller, J. D. Attitudes towards biotechnology in the European Union. J. Biotechnol. 98, 9-24 (2002).
5. Hampel, J.., Pfenning, U. & Peter, H. Attitudes toward genetic engineering. New Genet. Soc. 19, 233-249 (2000).
6. Sturgis, P.., Cooper, H. & Fife-Shaw, C. Attitudes to biotechnology: opinions of a better-informed public. New Genet. Soc. 24, 31-56 (2005).
7. Pfister, H.., Bohm, G. & Jungermann, H. The cognitive representation of genetic engineering: knowledge and evaluations. New Genet. Soc. 19, 296-316 (2000).
8. Wellcome Trust. Public perspectives on human cloning [online], 〈http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc%5Fwtd003422.html〉 (1998).
9. Wynne, B. Knowledges in context. Sci. Technol. Human Values 16, 111-121 (1991).
10. Jones, M. & Salter, B. The governance of human genetics: policy discourse and constructions of public trust. New Genet. Soc. 22, 21-41 (2003).
11. Brunk, C. G. Public knowledge, public trust: understanding the 'knowledge deficit'. Community Genet. 9, 178-183 (2006).
12. Irwin, A. Constructing the scientific citizen: science and democracy in the biosciences. Public Underst. Sci. 10, 1-18 (2001).
13. Franklin, S. Culturing biology: cell lines for the second millennium. Health 5, 335-354 (2001).
14. Collins F. S.., Green E. D.., Guttmacher A. E. & Guyer M. S. US National Human Genome Research Institute. A vision for the future of genomics research. Nature 422, 835-847 (2003).
15. DOE-NIH Joint Subcommittee. NIH, DOE Guidelines Encourage Sharing of Data, Resources. Human Genome News 4 [online], 〈http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ techresources/Human_Genome/publicat/hgn/v4n5/ 04share.shtml〉 (1993).
16. The Wellcome Trust. Summary of principles agreed at the International Strategy Meeting on Human Genome Sequencing [online], 〈http://www.gene.ucl. ac.uk/hugo/bermuda.htm〉 (1996).
17. National Research Council, Committee on Genomics Databases for Bioterrorism Threat Agents. Seeking Security: Pathogens, Open Access, and Genome Databases (National Academies, Washington, 2004).
18. Le Saux, O. et al. Mutations in a gene encoding an ABC transporter cause pseudoxanthoma elasticum. Nature Genet. 25, 223-227 (2000).
19. Rodriguez-Viciana, P. et al. Germline mutations in genes within the MAPK pathway cause cardiofacio-cutaneous syndrome. Science 311, 1287-1290 (2006).
20. Brody, B. Intellectual property and biotechnology: the US internal experience - part I. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 16, 1-37 (2006).
21. World Health Organization. Genetics, genomics and the patenting of DNA: review of potential implications for health in developing countries [online], 〈http://www.who.int/genomics/FullReport.pdf〉 (2005).
22. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Human Genetic Materials, Intellectual Property and the Health Sector [online], 〈http://strategis.ic. gc.ca/epic/internet/incbac-cccb.nsf/en/ah00578e.html〉 (2006).
23. Nuffield Council. The ethics of patenting DNA [online], 〈http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/go/ourwork/patentingdna/ introduction〉 (2002).
24. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights. Integrating intellectual property rights and development policy [online], 〈http://www.iprcommission. org/papers/pdfs/final_report/CIPRfullfinal.pdf〉(2002).
25. The HUGO Intellectual Property Committee. Statement on the scope of gene patents, research exemption and licensing of patented gene sequences for diagnostics [online],〈http://www.hugointernational.org/PDFs/ Statement%20on%20the%20 Scope%20of%20Gene%20Patents,%20Research%20Exemption. pdf〉 (2003).
26. Convention on Biological Diversity. Article 1. Objectives [online], 〈http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.shtml?lg=0&a=cbd-01〉 (1992).
27. Heller, M. A. & Eisenberg, R. S. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280, 698-701 (1998).
28. Cho, M. K., Illangasekare, S., Weaver, M. A., Leonard, D. G. & Merz, J. F. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3-8 (2003).
29. US Department of Commerce. Patent and Trademark Office. Utility Examination Guidelines. Fed. Regist. 66, 1092-1099 (2001).
30. European Parliament. Texts adopted by Parliament: patents on biotechnological inventions [online], http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/ getDoc.do?language=EN&pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+20051026+ITEMS+DOC+XML+V0// EN#sdocta8) (2005).
31. Marshall, E. Patient advocate named co-inventor on patent for the PXE disease gene. Science 305, 1226 (2004).
32. Malakoff, D. Intellectual property. NIH roils academe with advice on licensing DNA patents. Science 303, 1757-1758 (2004).
33. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights [online], 〈http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1881&URL_DO= DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html〉 (1997).
34. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). A declaration on human genetic data [online], 〈http://portal. unesco.org/shs/en/ev.php-URL_ID=1882&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html〉 (2003).
35. Lemmons, T., Joly, Y. & Knoppers, B. M. Genetics and life insurance: a comparative analysis. GenEdit 2, 1-14 [online], 〈http://www.humgen. umontreal.ca/int/genedit.cfm?idsel=1267〉 (2004).
36. HM Government and Association of British Insurers. Concordat and Moratorium Genetics and Insurance [online], 〈http://www.dh.gov.uk/ assetRoot/04/10/60/50/04106050.pdf〉 (2005).
37. Genetics and Insurance Committee. October 2000: Huntington's Disease (GAIC/01.1) [online], 〈http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/genetics/gaic/ huntingtons-oct00.pdf〉 (2000).
38. GeneWatch UK. Joint Statement of Concern Regarding Genetic Testing in the Workplace [online], 〈http://www.genewatch.org〉 (2006).
39. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Press Release: EEOC and BNSF settle genetic testing case under Americans with Disabilities Act [online], 〈http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-8-02.html〉 (2002).
40. Hall, M. et al. Concerns in a primary care population about genetic discrimination by insurers. Genet. Med. 7, 311-316 (2005).
41. Apse, K. A., Biesecker, B. B., Giardiello, F. M., Fuller, B. P. & Bernhardt, B. A. Perceptions of genetic discrimination among at-risk relatives of colorectal cancer patients. Genet. Med. 6, 510-516 (2004).
42. Otlowski, M. F., Taylor, S. D., Barlow-Stewart, K. K. Genetic discrimination: too few data. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 11, 1-2 (2003).
43. Wong, J. G. & Lieh-Mak, F. Genetic discrimination and mental illness: a case report. J. Med. Ethics 27, 393-397 (2001).
44. Hamvas, A. et al. Informed consent for genetic research. Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 158, 551-555 (2004).
45. Nedelcu, R. et al. Genetic discrimination: the clinician perspective. Clin. Genet. 66, 311-317 (2004).
46. Zick, C. D. et al. Genetic testing for Alzheimer's disease and its impact on insurance purchasing behavior. Health Aff. (Millwood) 24, 483-490 (2005).
47. Aktan-Collan, K., Haukkala, A. & Kaariainen, H. Life and health insurance behaviour of individuals having undergone a predictive genetic testing programme for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer. Community Genet. 4, 219-224 (2001).
48. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Pharmacogenomic Data Submissions [online], 〈http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6400fnl. pdf〉 (2005).
49. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Final Concept Paper E15: Terminology in Pharmacogenomics [online], 〈http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/ MEDIA3099.pdf〉 (2006).
50. European Medicines Agency. Guiding Principles: Processing Joint FDA EMEA Voluntary Genomic Data Submissions (VGDSs) within the framework of the Confidentiality Arrangement [online], 〈http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/general/ direct/pr/FDAEMEA.pdf〉 (2006).
51. Tencalla, F. Science, politics, and the GM debate in Europe. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 44, 43-48 (2006).
52. GM Nation. The Findings of the Public Debate [online], 〈http://www.gmnation.org.uk/docs/gmnation_finalreport.pdf〉 (2003).
53. Haga, S. B. Teaching resources in genetics. Nature Rev. Genet. 7, 223-229 (2006).
54. Mervis, J. The Dover ID decision. Judge Jones defines science - and why intelligent design isn't. Science 311, 34 (2006).
55. Department of Health. Our inheritance, our future - realising the power of genetics in the NHS [online], 〈http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/01/92/ 39/04019239.pdf〉 (2003).
56. Guttmacher, A. E, Jenkins, J. & Uhlmann, W. R. Genomic medicine: who will practice it? A call to open arms. Am. J. Med. Genet. 106, 216-222 (2001).
57. Giardiello, F. M. et al. The use and interpretation of commercial APC gene testing for familial adenomatous polyposis. N. Engl. J. Med. 336, 823-827 (1997).
58. Khoury, M. J. et al. Challenges in communicating genetics: a public health approach. Genet. Med. 2, 198-202 (2000).
59. Federal Trade Commission. Facts for Consumers: At-Home Genetic Tests: A Healthy Dose of Skepticism May Be the Best Prescription [online], 〈http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea02.htm〉 (2006).
60. Kessler, S., Field, T., Worth, L. & Mosbarger, H. Attitudes of persons at risk for Huntington disease toward predictive testing. Am. J. Med. Genet. 26, 259-270 (1987).
61. Craufurd, D., Dodge, A., Kerzin-Storrar, L. & Harris, R. Uptake of presymptomatic predictive testing for Huntington's disease. Lancet 2, 603-605 (1989).
62. Auld, G. W. et al. Reported adoption of dietary fat and fiber recommendations among consumers. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 100, 52-58 (2000).
63. Watt, R. G. et al. Public health aspects of tobacco control: setting the agenda for action by oral health professions across Europe. Oral Health Prev. Dent. 4, 19-26 (2006).
64. Thorpe, L. E. et al. Colon cancer screening practices in New York City, 2003: results of a large random-digit dialed telephone survey. Cancer 104, 1075-1082 (2005).
65. Botkin, J. R. et al. Genetic testing for BRCA1 mutation: prophylactic surgery and screening behavior in women 2 years post testing. Am. J. Med. Genet. 118, 201-209 (2003).
66. Hadley, D. W. et al. Colon cancer screening practices after genetic counseling and testing for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 22, 39-44 (2004).
67. Senior, V., Marteau, T. M. & Peters, T. J. Will genetic testing for predisposition to disease result in fatalism? A qualitative study of parents responses to neonatal screening for familial hypercholesterolemia. Soc. Sci. Med. 45, 1857-1860 (1999).
68. Genetic Alliance. Genetics Day on the Hill and Strategies for Success Teleconference Series [online], 〈http://www.geneticalliance.org/ws_display. asp?filter=gadvocacy.bonus06〉 (2006).
69. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Science & Technology Policy Fellowship Program [online], 〈http://fellowships.aaas. org〉 (2006).
70. The International HapMap Consortium. Integrating ethics and science in the International HapMap Project. Nature Rev. Genet. 5, 467-475 (2004).
71. Godard, B., Marshall, J., Laberge, C. & Knoppers, B. M. Strategies for Consulting with the Community: The cases of four large-scale genetic databases. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 10, 457-477 (2004).
72. Deschenes, M. & Sallee, C. Accountability in population biobanking: comparative approaches. J. Law Med. Ethics. 33, 40-53 (2005).
73. Office of Science and Technology and the Wellcome Trust. Science and the public: a review of science communication and public attitudes toward science in Britain. Public Underst. Sci. 10, 315-330 (2001).
74. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health. Best practices for the licensing of genomic inventions: Final Notice. Fed. Regist. 70, 18413-18415 (2005).
75. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Protection of Human Genetic Information (IP 26) [online], 〈http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/ publications/issues/26〉 (2001).
76. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Protection of Human Genetic Information (Discussion paper 66). [online], 〈http://www.austlii.edu.au/ au/other/alrc/publications/dp/66〉 (2002).
77. Australian Law Reform Commission and Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council. Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia (ALRC 96) [online], 〈http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/96〉 (2003).
78. O'Malley, M. A., Bostanci, A. & Calvert, J. Wholegenome patenting. Nature Rev. Genet. 6, 502-506 (2005).
79. Gold, E. R. SARS genome patent: symptom or disease? Lancet 361, 2002-2003 (2003).
80. Angrist, M. & Cook-Deegan, R. M. Who owns the genome? New Atlantis 11, 87-96 (2006).
81. US Patent and Trademark Office. Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents? [online], 〈http://www.uspto.gov/web/ offices/pac/dapp/opla/patentpool.pdf〉 (2000).
82. Simon, J. et al. Managing severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) intellectual property rights: the possible role of patent pooling. Bull. World Health Organ. 83, 707-710 (2005).
83. Stott, M. & Valentine, J. Gene patenting and medical research: a view from a pharmaceutical company. Nature Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 364-368 (2004).
84. Hornberger, J., Cosler, L. E. & Lyman, G. H. Economic analysis of targeting chemotherapy using a 21-gene RT-PCR assay in lymph-node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive, early-stage breast cancer. Am. J. Manag. Care. 11, 313-324 (2005).
85. Deng, M. C. et al. Noninvasive discrimination of rejection in cardiac allograft recipients using gene expression profiling. Am. J. Transplant. 6, 150-160 (2006).
86. Evans, R. W. et al. The economic implications of noninvasive molecular testing for cardiac allograft rejection. Am. J. Transplant. 5, 1553-1558 (2005).
87. Ramsey, S. D. et al. Toward evidence-based assessment for coverage and reimbursement of laboratory-based diagnostic and genetic tests. Am. J. Manag. Care 12, 197-202 (2006).
88. Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services. LCD for Oncotype DX Test - Breast Cancer Prognosis (L20634) [online], 〈http://www.cms.hhs.gov/mcd/ viewlcd.asp?lcd_id=20634&lcd_version=14&show=all〉 (2006).
89. Technology Evaluation Center. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. Gene Expression Profiling for Managing Breast Cancer Treatment. Assessment Program 20 [online], 〈http://www.bcbs.com/tec/Vol20/20_03.pdf〉 (2005).
90. Gollust, S. E., Hull, S. C. & Wilfond, B. S. Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing. JAMA 288, 1762-1767 (2002).
91. Genelex. Nutritional Genetic Testing. [online], 〈http://www. healthanddna.com/professional/nutrigenetics. html〉 (2006).
92. Sciona, Inc. Discover your Cellf - Which Cellf is Right for Me? - Comprehensive [online], 〈http://www.mycellf.com/comprehensive.html〉 (2006).
93. Genetic Technologies Limited. Sports Performance - ACTN3 Sports Gene Test [online], 〈 http://www.gtg.com.au/HumanDNATesting/index. asp?menuid=070.110.020〉 (2006).
94. Yang, N. et al. ACTN3 genotype is associated with human elite athletic performance. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 73, 627-631 (2003).
95. Human Genetics Commission. Genes Direct: ensuring the effective oversight of tests supplied directly to the public [online], 〈http://www.hgc.gov.uk/ UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/genesdirect_full.pdf〉 (2003).