Commercialization, patenting and genomics: Researcher perspectives

Genome Medicine

Volumn 1, Issue 2, 2009, Pages

  Murdoch, C J ^a   Caulfield, Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GENOMICS; LETTER; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PATENT; PEER PRESSURE; PEER REVIEW; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; STRUCTURED INTERVIEW;

EID: 77953380757     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1756994X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/gm22     Document Type: Letter

References (32)

1. Blumenthal D: Academic-industrial relationships in the life sciences. N Engl J Med 2003, 349:2452-2459.
2. Vallas SP, Kleinman DL: Contradiction, convergence and the knowledge economy: the confluence of academic and commercial biotechnology. Socioecon Rev 2007, 1-29.
3. Rothman DJ: Academic medical centers and financial conflicts of interest. JAMA 2008, 299:695-697.
4. Lemmens T: Leopards in the temple: restoring scientific integrity to the commercialized research scene. J Law Med Ethics 2004, 32:641-657.
5. Campbell EG, Clarridge BR, Gokhale M, Birenbaum L, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA, Blumenthal D: Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA 2002, 287:473-480.
6. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Gokhale M, Yucel R, Clarridge B, Hilgartner S, Holtzman NA: Data withholding in genetics and the other life sciences: prevalences and predictors. Acad Med 2006, 81:137-145.
7. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 2003, 289:454-465.
8. Stern JM, Simes RJ: Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ 1997, 315:640-645.
9. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R: Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008, 258:252-260.
10. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B: Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003, 326:1171-1173.
11. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004, 291:2457-2465.
12. Kyzas P, Loizou K, Ioannidis J: Selective reporting biases in cancer prognostic factor studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:1043-1055.
13. Friedman LS, Elihu DR: Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. J Gen Int Med 2004, 19:51-56.
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 2008, 17:309-327.
15. Caulfield T, Einsiedel E, Merz J, Nicol D: Trust, patents, and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nat Biotech 2006, 24:1352-1354.
16. Caulfield T, Bubela T, Murdoch CJ: Myriad and the mass media: the covering of a gene patent controversy. Genet Med 2007, 9:850-855.
17. Foster S: Gene patent fight imperils health care system. The Edmonton Journal 24 August 2001, A:1.
18. Benzie R: Ontario to defy U.S. patents on cancer genes. The National Post 20 September 2001, A:15.
19. Andrews L, Paradise J, Holbrook T, Bochneak D: When patents threaten science. Science 2006, 314:1395-1396.
20. Andrews LB: The gene patent dilemma: balancing commercial incentives with health needs. Houst J Health Law Policy 2002 2:65.
21. Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DG, Merz JF: Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J Mol Diag 2003, 5:3-8.
22. Heller M, Eisenberg R: Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 1998, 280:698-701.
23. Human Genetic Materials, Intellectual Property and the Health Sector. CBAC Report, 2006. [http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/cbaccccb. nsf/vwapj/CBAC_Report_e.pdf/$FILE/CBAC_Report_e.pdf]
24. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation: Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: intellectual property rights, innovation, and public health. National Research Council Report, 2005. [http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11487.html]
25. Genetics, genomics, and the patenting of DNA. WHO Report, 2005. [http://www.who.int/genomics/patentingDNA/en/]
26. Einsiedel E, Smith J: Canadian views on patenting biotechnology. CBAC Report, June 2005. [http://bric.postech.ac.kr/trend/biostat/2006/20060412_8.pdf]
27. Caulfield T, Cook-Deegan R, Kieff S, Walsh J: Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat Biotech 2006, 24:1091-1094.
28. Walsh J, Cho C, Cohen W: Patents, Material Transfers and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research: Final Report to the National Academy of Science's Committee Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein-related Inventions. NAS 2005. [http://www2.druid.dk/conferences/viewpaper.php?id=776andcf=8]
29. International Intellectual Property Experiences: a Report of Four Countries: Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest. American Association for the Advancement of Science Report, 2007. [http://sippi.aaas.org/Pubs/SIPPI_Four_Country_Report.pdf]
30. Caulfield T, Ogbogu U, Murdoch C, Einsiedel E: Patents, commercialization and the Canadian stem cell research community. Regen Med 2008, 3:483-496.
31. Holman CM: The impact of human gene patents on innovation and access: a survey of human gene patent litigation. UKMC Law Rev 2007, 76:295-300.
32. Genome Canada - Vision - Mission - Objectives [http://www. genomecanada.ca/en/about/vision.aspx]