Biomedical research and the commercialization agenda: A review of main considerations for neuroscience

Accountability in Research

Volumn 15, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 303-320

  Caulfield, Timothy ^a   Ogbogu, Ubaka ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biotechnology; Collaborative research; Commercialization; Neuroethics; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMERCIAL PHENOMENA; ECONOMICS; ETHICS; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; NEUROSCIENCE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATENT; PUBLIC RELATIONS; REVIEW; STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BIOTECHNOLOGY; COMMERCE; HUMANS; INTERINSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; NEUROSCIENCES; PATENTS AS TOPIC; PRIVATE SECTOR; PUBLIC SECTOR;

EID: 61449309302     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620802388788     Document Type: Review

References (94)

1. A Triumph of Hype over Experience? (1995). The Economist. 16 December.
2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (2007). International Intellectual Property Experiences: A Report of Four Ccountries. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Available at http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
3. Andrews, L. B. (2002). The gene patent dilemma: Balancing commercial incentives with health needs, Houston Journal of Health Law and Policy, 2: 65-106.
4. Atkinson-Grosjean, J. (2002). Canadian science at the public/private divide: The NCE experiment, Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3): 71-91.
5. Ausman, J. I. (2006). I told you it was going to happen part II, Surgical Neurology, 65(5)(May): 520-521.
6. Basky, G. (2001). Canada's first private genetic testing clinic "highly problematic": Geneticist, CMAJ 165(11) (27 November): 1524.
7. Becerra, X. (2007). Reps. Becerra & Weldon introduce bill to ban the practice of gene patenting. Available at http://becerra.house.gov/HoR/CA31/News/Press+Releases/2007/02-09-07+REPS+BECERRA+WELDON+INTRODUCE+ BILL+TO+BAN+THE+PRACTICE+OF+GENE+PATENTING.htm. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
8. Bekelman, J. E., Li, Y., and Gross, C. P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review, JAMA 289(4)(Jan 22-29): 454-465.
9. Beyleveld, D., and Brownsword, R. (2001). Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Bloom, P. (2006). Seduced by the flickering lights of the brain. Seed Magazine. 27 June. Available at http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/06/seduced_by_the_flickering_ligh.php. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
11. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Gokhale, M., Yucel, R., Clarridge, B., Hilgartner, S., and Holtzman, N. A. (2006). Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: Prevalences and predictors, Academic Medicine, 81(2)(Feb): 137-145.
12. Bubela, T. (2006). Science communication in transition: Genomics hype, public engagement, education and commercialization pressures, Clinical Genetics, 70(5)(Nov): 445-450.
13. Bubela, T. M., and Caulfield, T. A. (2004). Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers, CMAJ 170(9)(Apr 27): 1399-1407.
14. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., and Blumenthal, D. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics: Evidence from a national survey, JAMA, 287(4)(Jan. 23-30): 473-480.
15. Canada, Standing Committee on Health. (2001). Assisted reproduction: Building families. House of Commons, Canada. Available at http://cmte.parl.gc.ca.login.ezproxy.library.ualberta.ca/Content/HOC/committee/371/heal/reports/rp1032041/healrp02/healrp02-e.pdf. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
16. Canli, T., Brandon, S., Casebeer, W., Crowley, P. J., Du Rousseau, D., Greely, H. T., and Pascual-Leone, A. (2007). Neuroethics and national security, AJOB 7(5)(May): 3-13.
17. Caulfield, T. (2007). Profit and the production of the knowledge: The impact of industry on representations of research results, Harvard Health Policy Review, 8: 68-77.
18. Caulfield, T. (2005). Popular media, biotechnology and the 'cycle of hype,' Journal of Health Law and Policy 5: 213-233.
19. Caulfield, T. (2004). Biotechnology and the popular press: Hype and the selling of science, Trends in Biotechnology, 22(7)(Jul): 337-339.
20. Caulfield, T. (2003a). Sustainability and the balancing of the health care and innovation agendas: The commercialization of genetic research, Saskatchewan Law Review, 66(2): 629-645.
21. Caulfield, T. (2003b). From human genes to stem cells: New challenges for patent law? Trends in Biotechnology, 21(3)(Mar): 101-103.
22. Caulfield, T. (2000). Underwhelmed: Hyperbole, regulatory policy, and the genetic revolution, McGill Law Journal, 45: 437-460.
23. Caulfield, T. (1998). The commercialization of human genetics: A discussion of issues relevant to the Canadian consumer, Journal of Consumer Policy, 21(4): 483-526.
24. Caulfield, T. A., Knoppers, B. M., Gold, E. R., Sheremeta, L. E., and Bridge, P. J. (2003). Genetic technologies, health care policy and the patent bargain, Clinical Genetics, 63(1)(Jan): 15-18.
25. Caulfield, T., and Brownsword, R. (2006). Human dignity: A guide to policy making in the biotechnology era? Nature Reviews, Genetics, 7(1)(Jan): 72-76.
26. Caulfield, T., and Bubela, T. (2004). Media representations of genetic discoveries: Hype in the headlines? Health Law Review, 12(2): 53-61.
27. Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R. M., Kieff, F. S., and Walsh, J. P. (2006a). Evidence and anecdotes: An analysis of human gene patenting controversies, Nature Biotechnology, 24(9)(Sep): 1091-1094.
28. Caulfield, T., Einsiedel, E., Merz, J. F., and Nicol, D. (2006b). Trust, patents and public perceptions: The governance of controversial biotechnology research, Nature Biotechnology, 24(11)(Nov): 1352-1354.
29. Caulfield, T., Ogbogu, U., Murdoch, C. J., and Einsiedel, E. (2008). Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community, Regenerative Medicine, 3(4): 483-496.
30. Cho, M. K. (2002). Conflicts of interest in magnetic resonance imaging: Issues in clinical practice and research, Topics in Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 13(2)(Apr): 73-77.
31. Cho, M. K., and Bero, L. A. (1996). The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings, Annals of Internal Medicine, 124: 485.
32. Cho, M. K., Illangasekare, S., Weaver, M. A., Leonard, D. G., and Merz, J. F. (2003). Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services, The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 5(1)(Feb): 3-8.
33. Coles, T. (2008). Genetic testing from the comfort of your home. Reuters, 5 May, 2008. Available at http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=544e969c-14cb-4255-bfed-088f82d51607. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
34. Conrad, P. (2001). Genetic optimism: Framing genes and mental illness in the news, Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 25(2)(Jun): 225-247.
35. Danish Council on Ethics. (2004). Patenting human genes and stem cells. Copenhagen: Danish Council on Ethics. Available at http://www.etiskraad.dk/graphics/03_udgivelser/engelske_publikationer/patenting_human_genes/patents04/patenting_human_genes.pdf. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
36. Downie, J., and Herder, M. (2007). Reflections on the commercialization of research conducted in public institutions in Canada, McGill Health Law Publication, 1: 23-44.
37. Eaton, L. (2005). BMA warns against unnecessary screening tests in private sector, BMJ, 331(3 September): 475.
38. Eaton, M. L., and Illes, J. (2007). Commercializing cognitive neurotechnology-the ethical terrain, Nature Biotechnology, 25(4)(Apr): 393-397.
39. Ebers, M., and Powell, W. W. (2007). Biotechnology: Its origins, organization, and outputs, Research Policy, 36(4): 433-437.
40. Editorial. (2002). Neuroscience, Inc., Nature Neuroscience, 5(1)(Jan): 1.
41. Einsiedel, E., and Smith, J. (2005). Canadian views on patenting biotechnology. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Available at http://www.cbaccccb.ca/epic/site/cbac-cccb.nsf/vwapj/FINAL_inseidel_e.pdf/$FILE/FINAL_ inseidel_e.pdf. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
42. Federal Trade Commission. (2006). At-home genetic tests: A healthy dose of skepticism may be the best prescription. Available at http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea02.pdf. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
43. Firlik, A. D., Lowry, D. W., Levy, A. J., and Hirsch, R. C. (2000). The neurosurgeon as innovator and entrepreneur, Neurosurgery, 47(1)(Jul): 169-175; discussion 175-177.
44. Fisher, D., Atkinson-Grosjean, J., and House, D. (2001). Changes in academy/industry/state relations in Canada: The creation and development of the Networks of Centres of Excellence, Minerva, 39: 299-325.
45. Fitzgerald, M. (2005). VCs psyched over brain investments. Venture Capital Journal (August 1). Available at http://www.atvcapital.com/news.php?id=250. Last accessed May 5, 2008.
46. Fleising, J. (2001). In search of genohype: A content analysis of biotechnology company documents, New Genetics and Society, 20(3): 239-254.
47. Genetics and Public Policy Center. (2008). Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: Empowering or endangering the public? Available at http://www.dnapolicy.org/images/issuebriefpdfs/2006_DTC_Issue_Brief.pdf. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
48. Godin, B., Doré, C., and Larivière, V. (2002). The production of knowledge in Canada: Consolidation and diversification, Journal of Canadian Studies, 37(3): 56-70.
49. Gold, R. E. (2003). From theory to practice: Health care and the patent system, Health Law Journal, Special Edition: 21-39.
50. Greely, H. T. (2006). Neuroethics and ELSI: Similarities and differences, Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 7: 599-637.
51. Heller, M. A., and Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, (New York, N.Y.) 280 (5364)(May 1): 698-701.
52. Herder, M., and Brian, J. D. (2008). Canada's stem cell corporation: Aggregate concerns and the question of public trust, Journal of Business Ethics, 77(1): 73-84.
53. Holtzman, N. A., Bernhardt, B. A., Mountcastle-Shah, E., Rodgers, J. E., Tambor, E., and Geller, G. (2005). The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases, Community Genetics, 8(3): 133-144.
54. Hong, W., and Walsh, J. P. (2008). For money or glory? Commercialization, competition and secrecy in the entrepreneurial university, Sociological Quarterly, Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://smartech.gatech.edu/hande/1853/23032.
55. Hopkins, M. M., Martin, P. A., Nightingale, P., Kraft, A., and Mahdi, S. (2007). The myth of the biotech revolution: An assessment of technological, clinical and organisational change, Research Policy, 36(4): 566-589.
56. Human Genetics Commission. (2007a). More genes direct: A report on developments in the availability, marketing and regulation of genetic tests supplied directly to the public. London, UK: Human Genetics Commission. Available at http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/More%20Genes%20Direct%20-%20final.pdf. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
57. Human Genetics Commission. (2007b). Statement on private genetic testing services. Available at http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/Content.asp?ContentId=793. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
58. Human Genetics Commission. (2003). Genes direct: Ensuring the effective oversight of genetic tests supplied directly to the public. London, UK: Department of Health. Available at http://www.hgc.gov.uk/UploadDocs/DocPub/Document/genesdirect_full.pdf. Last accessed May 6, 2008.
59. Hype over experience-Stem cells and business. (2005). The Economist. 24 September.
60. Illes, J., and Racine, E. (2005). Imaging or imagining? A neuroethics challenge informed by genetics, AJOB 5(2)(Spring): 5-18.
61. Justo, L., and F. Erazun. 2007. Neuroethics and human rights, AJOB 7, (5) (May): 16-8.
62. Lau, D., Ogbogu, U., and Caulfield, T. From legitimate promise to quackery? The market for stem cell therapies. (Content analysis of websites offering stem cell based therapies), (submitted).
63. Lemmens, T. (2004). Leopards in the temple: Restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 32(4)(Winter): 641-657.
64. Mulkay, M. (1994). Embryos in the news, Public Understanding of Science, (Bristol, England) 3: 33-51.
65. Murray, F. (2007). The stem-cell market-Patents and the pursuit of scientific progress, The New England Journal of Medicine, 356(23)(Jun 7): 2341-2343.
66. Murray, F., and Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 63: 648-687.
67. Nelson, R. R. (2004). The market economy and the scientific commons, Research Policy, 33: 455-471.
68. Ogbogu, U. (2008). The regulation of conflicts of interest in the Canadian stem cell research environment, Health Law Review, 16(2): 41-55.
69. Plomer, A., Taymor, K. S., and Scott, C. T. (2008). Challenges to human embryonic stem cell patents, Cell Stem Cell, 2(1)(Jan): 13-17.
70. Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., and Illes, J. (2005). fMRI in the public eye, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6(2)(Feb): 159-164.
71. Racine, E., Bar-Ilan, O., and Illes, J. (2006). Brain imaging: A decade of coverage in the print media, Science Communication, 28(1): 122-143.
72. Racine, E., and Illes, J. (2006). Neuroethical responsibilities, The Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences, 33(3)(Aug): 269-277.
73. Ransohoff, D. F., and Ransohoff, R. M. (2001). Sensationalism in the media: When scientists and journalists may be complicit collaborators, Effective Clinical Practice, 4(4)(Jul-Aug): 185-188.
74. Resnik, D. B. (2007). Embryonic stem cell patents and human dignity, Health Care Analysis: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 15(3)(Sep): 211-222.
75. Resnik, D. B. (2003a). Patents on human-animal chimeras and threats to human dignity, AJOB 3,(3)(Summer): 35-36.
76. Resnik, D. B. (2003b). Are DNA patents bad for medicine? Health Policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 65(2)(Aug): 181197.
77. Resnik, D. B. (2002). The commercialization of human stem cells: Ethical and policy issues, Health Care Analysis: Journal of Health Philosophy and Policy, 10(2): 127-154.
78. Resnik, D. B. (2001). DNA patents and human dignity, The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(2)(Summer): 152-165.
79. Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., and Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to Rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from Rofecoxib litigation, JAMA, 299(15): 1800-1812.
80. Rousche, P., Schneeweis, D. M., Perreault, E. J., and Jensen, W. (2008). Translational neural engineering: Multiple perspectives on bringing benchtop research into the clinical domain, Journal of Neural Engineering, 5(1)(Mar): P16-20.
81. Sheehy, H., Legault, M., and Ireland, D. (1998). Consumers and biotechnology: A synopsis of survey and focus group research, Journal of Consumer Policy, 21: 359-386.
82. Shuchman, M., and Wilkes, M. S. (1997). Medical scientists and health news reporting: A case of miscommunication, Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(12)(Jun 15): 976-982.
83. Smith, R. (2003). The screening industry, BMJ, 326(26 April): 0.
84. Stelfox, H. T., Chua, G., O'Rourke, K., and Detsky, A. S. (1998). Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists, The New England Journal of Medicine, 338(2)(Jan 8): 101-106.
85. Vogeli, C., Yucel, R., Bendavid, E., Jones, L. M., Anderson, M. S., Louis, K. S., and Campbell, E. G. (2006). Data withholding and the next generation of scientists: Results of a national survey, Academic Medicine, 81(2)(Feb): 128-136.
86. Vrtovec, K. T., and Scott, C. T. (2008). Patenting pluripotence: The next battle for stem cell intellectual property, Nature Biotechnology, 26(4)(Apr): 393-395.
87. Walsh, J. P., Arora, A., and Cohen, W. M. (2003). Science and the law. Working through the patent problem. Science (New York, N.Y.) 299(5609)(Feb 14): 1021.
88. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., and Cohen, W. M. (2005). Patents, material transfers and access to research inputs in biomedical research: Final report to the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-related Inventions. National Academy of Sciences. Retrieved October 5, 2008, from http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=776&cf=8.
89. Walsh, J. P., Cohen, W. M., and Cho, C. (2007). Where excludability matters: Material versus intellectual property in academic biomedical research, Research Policy, 36: 1184-1203.
90. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., and Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3)(Mar): 470-477.
91. Wilkes, M. S., and Kravitz, R. L. (1992). Medical researchers and the media. Attitudes toward public dissemination of research, JAMA, 268(8)(Aug 26): 999-1003.
92. Williams-Jones, B. (2006). 'Be ready against cancer, now': Direct-to-consumer advertising for genetic testing, New Genetics & Society, 25(1): 89-107.
93. Williams-Jones, B., and Corrigan, O. P. (2003). Rhetoric and hype: Where's the 'ethics' in pharmacogenomics? American Journal of Pharmacogenomics: Genomics-Related Research in Drug Development and Clinical Practice, 3(6): 375-383.
94. Wolpe, P. R., Foster K. R., and Langleben, D. D. (2005). Emerging neurotechnologies for lie-detection: Promises and perils, AJOB, 5(2)(Spring): 39-49.