Patenting genomic objects: Genes, genomes, function and information

Science as Culture

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 207-223

  Calvert, Jane ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013474555     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430701387953     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Allarakhia, M., and Wensley, A., 2005. Innovation and intellectual property rights in systems biology. Nature Biotechnology, 23 (12):1485–1488.
2. Arrow, K. J., 1962. “ Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention ”. In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity:Economic and Social Factors, Edited by:Nelson, R. R., 609–625. Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press.
3. Auffray, C., Imbeaud, S., Roux-Rouquié, M., and Hood, L., 2003. From functional genomics to systems biology:concepts and practices. Compte Rendus Biologies, 326 (10):879–892.
4. Balmer, B., 1996. Managing mapping in the human genome project. Social Studies of Science, 26 (3):531–573.
5. Barton, J. H., 2002. Patents, genomics, research, and diagnostics. Academic Medicine, 77 (12):1339–1347.
6. BBC. 2005. Software patent bill thrown out. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4655955.stm (accessed 3 February 2007)
7. Beurton, P., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H. J., 2000. The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution, Edited by:Beurton, P., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H. J., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
8. Bostanci, A., and Calvert, J., forthcoming 2008. Invisible genomes:the genomics revolution and patenting practice. Studies in History and Philosophy of the Biological and Biomedical Sciences
9. Callon, M., 1994. Is science a public good?. Science, Technology and Human Values, 19 (4):395–424.
10. Calvert, J., 2004. Genomic patenting and the utility requirement. New Genetics and Society, 23 (3):301–312.
11. Cook-Deegan, R., 1994. The Gene Wars, New York:W.W. Norton & Company.
12. Cornish, W. R., Llewellyn, M., and Adcock, M., 2003. Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) and Genetics:A Study into the Impact and Management of Intellectual Property Rights within the Healthcare Sector, Cambridge:Public Health Genetics Unit.
13. Department of Energy. 2006. Genetics and Patenting. Human Genome Project Information. August 29, 2006. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml (accessed 6 January 2007)
14. Dupré, J., 2004. Understanding contemporary genomics. Perspectives on Science, 12 (3):320–338.
15. Dupré, J., 2007. The Constituents of Life, Amsterdam:Amsterdam Van Gorcum. 2006 Spinoza Lectures, University of Amsterdam
16. Eisenberg, R., 2000. Re-examining the role of patents in appropriating the value of DNA sequences. Emory Law Journal, 49 (3):783–800.
17. Eisenberg, R., 2002. Molecules vs. information:should patents protect both? (Symposium on Bioinformatics and Intellectual Property Law). Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 8 (1):190–217.
18. EU Directive. 1998. Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, (98/44/EC), http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/1998/l_213/l_21319980730en00130021.pdf (accessed 3 February 2007)
19. EPO. 2005. Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office, Munich:EPO. http://www.european-patent-office.org/legal/gui_lines/pdf_2005/guidelines_2005_e.pdf/ (accessed 3 February 2007)
20. Fortun, M., 1997. “ Projecting speed genomics ”. In The Practices Human Genetics:Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Edited by:Fortun, M., and Mendelson, E., Vol. XXI, 25–48. Kluwer.
21. Fox Keller, E., 2005. The century beyond the gene. Journal of the Biosciences, 30 (1):3–10.
22. Fujimura, J., 1999. “ The practices of producing meaning in bioinformatics ”. In The Practices Human Genetics:Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook, Edited by:Fortun, M., and Mendelson, E., Vol. XXI, 49–87. Kluwer.
23. Gibbs, W. W., 2003. The unseen genome:gems among the junk. Scientific American, 289 (5):46–53.
24. Gieryn, T. F., 1983. Boundary work and the demarcation of science from non-science:strains and interests in the professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48 (6):781–795.
25. Gieryn, T. F., 1995. “ Boundaries of science ”. In Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, Edited by:Jasanoff, S., Markle, G. E., Petersen, J., and Pinch, T., 393–443. Thousand Oaks:Sage.
26. Gieryn, T. F., 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
27. Gilbert, S. F., and Sarkar, S., 2000. Embracing complexity:organicism for the 21st century. Developmental Dynamics, 219 (1):1–9.
28. Goodfellow, P., 1997. A celebration and a farewell. Nat Genet, 16 (3):209–210.
29. Griffiths, P., 2001. Genetic information:a metaphor in search of a theory. Philosophy of Science, 68 (3):394–412.
30. Hilgartner, S., 1997. “ Access to data and intellectual property:scientific exchange in genome research, in:National Research Council ”. In Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology, 28–39. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. Report of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences, 15–16 February 1996
31. Human Genome Organization. 1995. HUGO Statement on Patenting of DNA Sequences, Bethesda:Maryland. http://www.hugo-international.org/PDFs/Statement%20on%20Patenting%20of%20DNA%20Sequences%202000.pdf (accessed 1 February 2007)
32. Kay, L., 1999. “ In the beginning was the word:the genetic code and the book of life ”. In The Science Studies Reader, Edited by:Biagioli, M., 224–233. New York, London:Routledge.
33. Kane, E. M., 2004. Splitting the gene:DNA patents and the genetic code. Tennessee Law Review, 71 (4):707–767.
34. Kevles, D. J., 2002. A History of Patenting Life in the United States with Comparative Attention to Europe and Canada, Luxembourg:Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
35. Kucherlapati, R. D., McKusick, V. A., and Ruddle, F. H., 1996. Genomics:an established discipline, a commonly used name, a mature journal. Genomics, 31 (1):1–2.
36. Lander, E. S., and Weinberg, R. A., 2000. Journey to the centre of biology. Science, 287 (5459):1777–1782.
37. Llewelyn, M., 1994. Industrial applicability/utility and genetic engineering:current practices in Europe and the United States. European Intellectual Property Review, 16 (11):473–480.
38. Maschio, T., and Kowalski, T., 2001. Bioinformatics–a patenting view. TRENDS in Biotechnology, 19 (9):334–339.
39. McKusick, V. A., and Ruddle, F. H., 1987. Genomics:a new discipline, a new name, a new journal. Genomics, 1 (1):1–2.
40. Merton, R. K., 1942. The Sociology of Science:Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
41. Moss, L., 2003. What Genes Can't Do, Cambridge:MIT Press.
42. National Research Council. February 1996 1997. “ Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences ”. In Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology, February 1996, 15–16. Washington DC:National Academy Press.
43. Nelson, R., 1959. The simple economics of basic research. Journal of Political Economy, 67 (2):297–306.
44. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002. The Ethics of Patenting DNA, London:Nuffield Council on Bioethics.
45. O'Malley, M., Bostanci, A., and Calvert, J., 2005. Whole genome patenting. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6 (6):502–506.
46. Pearson, H., 2006. What is a gene?. Nature, 441 25 May:398–401.
47. Rai, A. K., 2005. “ Open and collaborative research:a new model for biomedicine ”. In Intellectual Property Rights in Frontier Industries:Software and Biotechnology, Edited by:Hahn, R. W., 131–158. Washington, DC:AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies.
48. Rheinberger, H.-J., 2000. “ Gene concepts:fragments from the perspective of molecular biology ”. In The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution, Edited by:Beurton, P., Falk, R., and Rheinberger, H.-J., 219–239. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Rheinberger, H.-J., and Müller-Wille, S., 2004. “ Gene ”. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edited by:Zalta, E. N., http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/gene/ (accessed 2 February 2007)
50. Russell, J., 2006. Optimata, Entelos win simulation patents. Bio-IT World Jan 26, www.bio-itworld.com/newsitems/2006/january/01-26-06-news-biosimulation (accessed 2 February 2007)
51. Rutz, B., and Yeats, S., 2004. The importance of being inventive. European Molecular Biology Organisation Reports, 5 (2):119–123.
52. Sarkar, S., 1996. “ Biological information:a skeptical look at some central dogmas of molecular biology ”. In The Philosophy and History of Molecular Biology:New Perspectives, Edited by:Sarkar, S., 187–231. Dordrecht:Kluwer.
53. Trilateral Project. 2001. Comparative Study on Biotechnology Patent Practices, (Theme:nucleic acid molecule-related inventions whose functions are inferred based on homology search) online at http://www.trilateral.net/projects/biotechnology/patentability_of_dna_fragments/patentability_of_dna_fragments.pdf (accessed 6 January 2007)
54. UK Patent Office. 2006. Examination Guidelines for Patent Applications relation to Biotechnological Inventions in the UK Patent Office, (September 2006), http://www.patent.gov.uk/biotech.pdf (accessed 1 February 2007)
55. USPTO. August 2001, Latest Revision May 2004 2004. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Eighth Edition, August 2001, Latest Revision May 2004, Washington, DC:US Department of Commerce, United States Patent and Trademark Office. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/index.html (accessed 1 February 2007)
56. Waters, K. C., 2000. Molecules made biological. Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 4 (214):539–564.