Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 2, pages 228–231 (2001)Cite this article

Abstract

Pharmacogenomics is the application of genomics technology to the discovery and development of drugs. A greater understanding of the way in which individuals with a particular genotype respond to a drug allows manufacturers to identify population subgroups that will benefit most from a particular drug. The increasing emphasis on pharmacogenomics is likely to raise ethical and legal questions regarding, among other things, the design of research studies, the construction of clinical trials and the pricing of drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Lazarou, J., Pomeranz, B. H. & Corey, P. N. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 279, 1200–1205 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Flanagan, A. Screening technologies evolve: innovations spurred by race to profit from genetic data. Genet. Eng. News 20, 1, 19–20, 71 ( September 1, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barrett, A. The pharma frenzy: in the race for gene-based therapies, big drugmakers join forces with upstarts. Business Week 160– 161 (June 2000).

  4. Roses, A. D. Pharmacogenetics and the practice of medicine. Nature 405, 857–865 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Noah, B. A. Adverse drug reactions: harnessing experiential data to promote patient welfare . Catholic U. Law Rev. 49, 449– 504 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Roses, A. D. Pharmacogenetics and future drug development and delivery. Lancet 355, 1358–1361 ( 2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Richmond, M. H. et al. Human Genomics: Prospects for Health Care and Public Policy (Pharmaceutical Partners for Better Healthcare, England, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wood, A. J. J. & Woosley, R. Making medicines safer—the need for an independent drug safety board. N. Engl. J. Med. 339, 1851–1853 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Rothstein, M. A. Genetic privacy and confidentiality: why they are so hard to protect. J. Law Med. Ethics 26, 198–204 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Meyer, U. A. Pharmacogenetics and adverse drug reactions. Lancet 356, 1667–1671 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Evans, W. E. & Relling, M. V. Pharmacogenomics: translating functional genomics into rational therapeutics. Science 286, 487–491 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Beutler, E. G6PD: population genetics and clinical manifestations. Blood Rev. 10, 45–52 ( 1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Weber, W. W. Pharmacogenetics Vol. 15 (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Grant, D. M. et al. Human acetyltransferase polymorphisms. Mutat Res. 376, 61–70 ( 1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sharp, R. S. & Foster, M. W. Involving study populations in the review of genetic research. J. Law Med. Ethics 28, 41–50 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Juengst, E. T. Commentary: what 'community review' can and cannot do. J. Law Med. Ethics 28, 52–54 ( 2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Holmer, A. F. Correspondence: the pharmaceutical industry—to whom is it accountable? N. Engl. J. Med. 343, 1415 ( 2000).

  18. Mrazek, M. F. & Mossialos, E. Increasing demand while decreasing costs of generic medicines. Lancet 356, 1784–1785 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Angell, M. The pharmaceutical industry—to whom is it accountable? N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1902–1904 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Thamer, M. et al. A cross-national comparison of orphan drug policies: implications for the U. S. Orphan Drug Act. J. Hlth Politics Policy Law 23, 265–290 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pulsinelli, G. A. The orphan drug act: what's right with it. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law J. 15, 299– 345 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kuszler, P. C. Financing clinical research and experimental therapies: payment due, but from whom? DePaul J. Hlth Care Law 3, 441– 494 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schoonmaker, M. M. et al. Factors influencing health insurers' decisions to cover new genetic technologies. Intl J. Technol. Assess. Hlth Care 16, 178–189 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Horner v. Spalitto, 1 S. W. 3d 519 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999) (reversing grant of summary judgement in favor of customer who died from overdose following accurate filling of incorrectly prescribed drug by pharmacist). Opinion

  25. Cassidy v. Smithkline Beecham, No. 99-10423 (Pa. Chester County Dec. 14, 1999).

  26. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report (April 18, 1979).

  27. Emanuel, E. J., Wendler, D. & Grady, C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 283, 2701–2711 ( 2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors are grateful to Joseph Wang for his research assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Bioethics, Health Policy and Law, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 101 West Chestnut, Louisville, 40202, Kentucky, USA

    Mark A. Rothstein & Phyllis Griffin Epps

  2. Health Law and Policy Institute , University of Houston Law Centre, Houston , 77204-6391, Texas, USA

    Mark A. Rothstein & Phyllis Griffin Epps

Authors
  1. Mark A. Rothstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Phyllis Griffin Epps
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

DATABASE LINKS

G6PD

haemolytic anaemia

NAT2

Lyme disease

FURTHER INFORMATION

European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

The European Commission's report on orphan medicinal products

Belmont Report

Food and Drug Administration

European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products

Pharmaceuticals Affairs Bureau

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

Journal of International Law and Practice

Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal

Genetic Engineering News

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rothstein, M., Epps, P. Ethical and legal implications of pharmacogenomics . Nat Rev Genet 2, 228–231 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/35056075

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35056075

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing