Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community

Regenerative Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 483-496

  Caulfield, Timothy ^a   Ogbogu, Ubaka ^a   Murdoch, Charles ^a   Einsiedel, Edna ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Academic integrity; Commercialization; Conflicts of interest; Data withholding; Licensing; Patents; Publication delays; Research; Social benefit; Stem cell

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANADA; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROFESSIONAL KNOWLEDGE; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLICATION; RESEARCH ETHICS; STEM CELL RESEARCH; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; STEM CELL;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CANADA; COMMERCE; DATA COLLECTION; HUMANS; PATENTS AS TOPIC; STEM CELLS;

EID: 49149103001     PISSN: 17460751     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2217/17460751.3.4.483     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bouchard RA, Lemmens T: Privatizing biomedical research: a 'third way'. Nat. Biotechnol. 26(1), 31-36 (2008).
2. Vallas SP, Kleinman DL: Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socioecon. Rev. 6(2), 283-311 (2008).
3. Lemmens T: Leopards in the temple: restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene. J. Law Med. Ethics 32(4), 641-657 (2004).
4. Blumenthal D: Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. N. Engl. J. Med. 349(25), 2452-2459 (2003).
5. Ehringhaus SH, Weissman JS, Sears JL, Goold SD, Feibelmann S, Campbell EG: Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA 299(6), 665-671 (2008).
6. Rothman DJ: Academic medical centers and financial conflicts of interest. JAMA 299(6), 695-697 (2008).
7. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M et al.: Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 287(4), 473-480 (2002).
8. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289(4), 454-465 (2003).
9. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M et al.: Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad. Med. 81(2), 137-145 (2006).
10. Hong W, Walsh JP: For Money or Glory? Commercialization, competition and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university. Sociol. Q. (2008) (Epub ahead of print).
11. Friedman LS, Elihu DR: Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J. Gen. Int. Med. 19(1), 51-56 (2004).
12. Caulfield T: The commercialization of medical and scientific reporting. PLoS Med. 1(3), 178-179 (2005).
13. Caulfield T, Einsiedel E, Merz J, Nicol D: Trust, patents, and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(11), 1352-1354 (2006).
14. Critchley CR: Public opinion and trust in scientists: the role of the research context and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Underst. Sci. 17(3), 309-327 (2008).
15. Resnik D: Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity. Health Care Anal. 15(3), 211-222 (2007).
16. Caulfield T: Stem cell patents and social controversy: a speculative view from Canada. Med. Law Int. 7, 219-232 (2006).
17. Porter G, Denning C, Plomer A, Sinden J, Torremans P: The patentability of human embryonic stem cells in Europe. Nat. Biotechnol. 24(6), 653-655 (2006).
18. Resnik D: The commercialization of human stem cells: ethical and policy issues. Health Care Anal. 10(2), 127-154 (2002).
19. Rabino I: How human geneticists in US view commercialization of the Human Genome Project. Nat. Genet. 29(1), 15-16 (2001).
20. Walsh JP, Cohen WM, Cho C: Where excludability matters: material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research. Res. Policy 36(8), 1184-1203 (2007).
21. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS: Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA 277(15), 1224-1228 (1997).
22. Walsh JP, Hong W: Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature 422, 801-802 (2003).
23. Ogbogu U: The regulation of conflicts of interest in the Canadian stem cell research environment. Health Law Rev. 16(2), 41-55 (2008).
24. Herder M: Proliferating patent problems with human embryonic stem cell research? J. Bioethical Inq. 3(1-2), 69-79 (2006).
25. Herder M, Brian JD: Canada's stem cell corporation: aggregate concerns and the question of public trust. J. Bus. Ethics 77(1), 73-84 (2008).
26. Caulfield T Ogbogu U, Nelson E et al.: Stem cell research ethics: consensus statement on emerging issues. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 29(10), 843-848 (2007).
27. Ogbogu U: A review of pressing ethical issues relevant to stem cell translational research. Health Law Rev. 14(3), 39-43 (2006).
28. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan RM, Kieff FS, Walsh JP: Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 1091-1094 (2006).
29. Caulfield T: An independent voice? Conflicts of interest and research on ethical, legal and social issues. Health Law Rev. 13(2,3), 114-116 (2005).
30. Nelson E, Ogbogu U, Caulfield T: An investigation of embryo donation, informed consent and research oversight in Canadian human embryonic stem cell research. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 29(12), 997-1002 (2007).
31. Kitch EW: The nature and function of the patent system. J. Law Econ. 20(2), 265-290 (1977).
32. Mazzoleni R, Nelson RR: The benefits and costs of strong patent protection: a contribution to the current debate. Res. Policy 27(3), 273-284 (1998).
33. Caulfield T: Sustainability and the balancing of the health care and innovation agendas: The commercialization of genetic research. Sask. Law Rev. 66(2), 629-645 (2003).
34. American Association for the Advancement of Science: International Intellectual Property Experiences: A Report of four Countries Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. Washington, DC, USA: Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, American Association for the Advancement of Science (2007).
35. Harvard College vs Canada (Commissioner of Patents), SCC 76, 4 S.C.R. 45 (2002).
36. Check E: Canada stops Harvard's oncomouse in its tracks. Nature 420, 593 (2002).
37. Makin K, Yourk D: Harvard mouse can't be patented. The Globe and Mail, Technology section, front page. December 5 (2002).
38. Scassa T: A mouse is a mouse is a mouse: a comment on the supreme court of Canada's decision on the Harvard mouse patent (Harvard College vs Canada (Comr of Patents). Oxford Univ. Commonwealth Law J. 3, 105-117 (2003).
39. Caulfield T: Policy conflicts: gene patents and health care in Canada. Community Genet. 8(4), 223-227 (2005).
40. Thomas S: Their hands on your genes. New Sci. 175(2354), 25 (2002).
41. Gold RE: From theory to practice: health care and the patent system. Health Law J. (Special Edition) 21-40 (2003).
42. Vogeli C, Yucel R, Bendavid E et al.: Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: results of a national survey. Acad. Med. 81(2), 128-136 (2006).