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.

  • Commentary
  • Published:

The case for genomic patenting

Nature volume 378, pages 534–536 (1995)Cite this article

Opposition to the patenting of genomic inventions threatens to erode the foundation of intellectual property rights needed to convert innovative research into new drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests.

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

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

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

References

  1. Nature 371, 363 (1994).

  2. Nature 371, 270 (1994).

  3. Nature 374, 750 (1995).

  4. Nature 374, 391 (1995).

  5. Smith G. K. & Kettelberger, D. M. Am. Intellect. Prop. Law. Ass. Quart. J. 22, 28–64 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  6. National Academies Advisory Group Intellectual Property and the Academic Community (Royal Society, London, 1995).

  7. HUGO Statement on Patenting of DNA Sequences (Human Genome Organisation, Bethesda, 1995).

  8. Science and Technology Committee Human Genetics: The Science and Its Consequences Vol. 1 (HMSO, London, 1995).

  9. Patenting Human Genes: A Report (Danish Council of Ethics, Copenhagen, 1994).

  10. Human Tissue: Ethical and Legal Issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1995).

  11. Biotechnology Products: EPLC Pharmaceutical Law Report No. 9 (Scrip, Richmond 1994).

  12. Office of Science and Technology Intellectual Property in the Public Sector Research Base (HMSO, London, 1992).

  13. Warshofsky, F. The Patent Wars (Wiley, New York, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology (HMSO, London, 1993).

  15. Office of Technology Assessment Biotechnology in a Global Economy 203 (US Government Printing Office, Washington DC, 1991).

  16. US public laws 96–480 and 96–517 (1980) and amendments at 15 USC 3701–14 and 35 USC 200–211 (1988).

  17. Scott-Ram, N. Nature 364, 666–668 (1993).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen, J. Science 268, 1715–1718 (1995).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fed. Register 60, 12771 (1995).

  20. Butler, D. Nature 370, 4 (1994).

    ADS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Adams, M. D. et al. Nature 377 (suppl.) (1995).

  22. Williamson, A. R. and Elliston, K. O. Nature 372, 10 (1994).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Re Deuel et al. U. S. Patent and Trademark Office 94–1202 (Ser. No, 07–542, 232) (1995).

  24. Genetic Screening: Ethical Issues (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, 1994).

  25. Assessing Genetic Risks (eds. Andrews, L. B., Fullerton, J. E., Hotzman, N. A. & Motulsky, A. G.) (National Academy Press, Washington DC, 1994).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, 709 Swedeland Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406-5939, USA

    George Posts

Authors
  1. George Posts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Posts, G. The case for genomic patenting. Nature 378, 534–536 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1038/378534a0

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/378534a0

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