Trust is not something you can reclaim easily: Patenting in the field of direct-to-consumer genetic testing

Genetics in Medicine

Volumn 15, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 382-387

  Sterckx, Sigrid ^a,b   Cockbain, Julian ^c   Howard, Heidi ^d   Huys, Isabelle ^e   Borry, Pascal ^e  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b VRIJE UNIVERSITEIT BRUSSEL   (Belgium)

^c European Patent Attorney and Partner of Dehns   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITÉ DE TOULOUSE   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

Author keywords

direct to consumer; ethics; genetic testing; patenting

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONSUMER; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA BASE; DIRECT TO CONSUMER GENETIC TESTING; DONOR SELECTION; FAMILY; GAMETE; GENETIC ANALYSIS; GENETIC ASSOCIATION; GENETIC SCREENING; GENOME; GENOTYPE; HUMAN; INHERITANCE; MEDICAL ETHICS; PARKINSON DISEASE; PATENT; SINGLE NUCLEOTIDE POLYMORPHISM; WEB BROWSER;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; GENETIC RESEARCH; GENETIC TESTING; HEALTH CARE SECTOR; HUMANS; INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY; INTERNET; TRUST;

EID: 84877287275     PISSN: 10983600     EISSN: 15300366     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/gim.2012.143     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Caulfield T, McGuire AL. Direct-to-consumer genetic testing: perceptions, problems, and policy responses. Annu Rev Med 2012;63:23-33.
2. Koch VG. PGTandMe: social networking-based genetic testing and the evolving research model. Health Matrix Clevel 2012;22:33-74.
3. Kaye J, Curren L, Anderson N, et al. From patients to partners: participantcentric initiatives in biomedical research. Nat Rev Genet 2012;13:371-376.
4. Tutton R, Prainsack B. Enterprising or altruistic selves? Making up research subjects in genetics research. Sociol Health Illn 2011;33:1081-1095.
5. Prainsack B. Voting with their mice: personal genome testing and the "participatory turn" in disease research. Account Res 2011;18:132-147.
6. Do CB, Tung JY, Dorfman E, et al. Web-based genome-wide association study identifies two novel loci and a substantial genetic component for Parkinson's disease. PLoS Genet 2011;7:e1002141.
7. 23andme. 23andWe Research. https://www.23andme.com/research Accessed 13 June 2012: 2012.
8. Wojcicki A. Announcing 23andMe's first patent. http://spittoon.23andme. com/news/announcing-23andmes-first-patent/Accessed 13 June 2012.
9. Human Genetics Commission. Intellectual property and DNA diagnostics. http://www.hgc.gov.uk/Client/document.asp?DocId=318&CAtegoryId=10 Accessed 13 June 2012.
10. Cook-Deegan R, Chandrasekharan S, Angrist M. The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature 2009;458:405-406.
11. Murdoch C, Caulfield T. Commercialization, patenting and genomics: researcher perspectives. Genome Med 2009;1:22.
12. Sterckx S, Cockbain J. Exclusions from patentability. How far has the European Patent Office eroded boundaries? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 2012.
13. Nobile H, Vermeulen E, Thys K, Bergmann MM, Borry P. Why do participants enroll in population biobank studies? A systematic literature review. Expert Rev Molecular Diagnostics 2012, in press.
14. Haddow G. "We only did it because he asked us": gendered accounts of participation in a population genetic data collection. Soc Sci Med 2009;69:1010-1017.
15. Allen J, McNamara B. Reconsidering the value of consent in biobank research. Bioethics 2011;25:155-166.
16. Lemke AA, Wolf WA, Hebert-Beirne J, Smith ME. Public and biobank participant attitudes toward genetic research participation and data sharing. Public Health Genomics 2010;13:368-377.
17. Streicher SA, Sanderson SC, Jabs EW, et al. Reasons for participating and genetic information needs among racially and ethnically diverse biobank participants: a focus group study. J Community Genet 2011;2:153-163.
18. Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE, Jackson CJ, et al. Beyond "misunderstanding": written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Soc Sci Med 2007;65:2212-2222.
19. Skolbekken JA, Ursin L, Solberg B, Christensen E, Ytterhus B. Not worth the paper it's written on? Informed consent and biobank research in a Norwegian context. Critical Public Health 2005;15:335-347.
20. Steinsbekk KS, Ursin LO, Skolbekken JA, Solberg B. We're not in it for the money-lay people's moral intuitions on commercial use of "their" biobank. Med Health Care Philos 2011; e-pub ahead of print.
21. Steinsbekk KS, Solberg B, Myskja BK. From idealism to realism: commercial ventures in publicly funded biobanks. New Challenges for Biobanks: Ethics, Law and Governance (GeneBanC Project). Intersentia: Antwerp 2009:137-151.
22. Hoeyer K. Trading in cold blood? In: Dabrock P, Taupitz J, Ried J (eds). Trust in Biobanking. Springer: Erlangen, 2012:21-41.
23. Malinowski MJ. Technology transfer in biobanking: credits, debits, and population health futures. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:54-69.
24. 23andme. Terms of service. https://www.23andme.com/about/tos/Accessed 13 June 2012.
25. 23andme. Consent document. https://www.23andme.com/about/consent/Accessed 13 June 2012.
26. Beauchamp T, Childress J. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. 6th edn. Oxford University Press: New York, 2009.
27. Savulescu J. No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. Against. BMJ 2002;325:648-651.
28. Huntington I, Robinson W. The many ways of saying yes and no: reflections on the research coordinator's role in recruiting research participants and obtaining informed consent. IRB 2007;29:6-10.
29. Sugarman J, McCrory DC, Powell D, et al. Empirical research on informed consent. An annotated bibliography. Hastings Center Report 1999;29: S1-42.
30. Ormond KE, Cirino AL, Helenowski IB, Chisholm RL, Wolf WA. Assessing the understanding of biobank participants. Am J Med Genet A 2009;149A:188-198.
31. Cook AF, Hoas H. Trading places: what the research participant can tell the investigator about informed consent. J Clinic Res Bioeth 2011; 2:1-7.
32. Weinfurt KP, Hall MA, King NM, Friedman JY, Schulman KA, Sugarman J. Disclosure of financial relationships to participants in clinical research. N Engl J Med 2009;361:916-921.
33. Cook AF, Hoas H. Exploring the obligation to inform: disclosing the purpose and benefits of research in an increasingly commercial research environment. AJOB Primary Research 2011;2:34-41.
34. Cook-Deegan R, Heaney C. Patents in genomics and human genetics. Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet 2010;11:383-425.
35. Mayo Collaborative Services, DBA Mayo Medical Laboratories, et al. v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 566 U.S. (2012), 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012). 2012.