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.

The dangers of diagnostic monopolies

Nature volume 458, pages 405–406 (2009)Cite this article

In the first of two commentaries on intellectual property, Robert Cook-Deegan, Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Misha Angrist show how the United States can address glitches with exclusive licences.

Despite the fears, patents have not caused irreparable harm in genetic diagnostics, but neither have they proven greatly advantageous. Although our findings detect no pervasive effects that consistently help or hinder clinical access to genetic testing, there are some problems that could be addressed to the benefit of patients, researchers, health professionals and companies alike.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Get just this article for as long as you need it

$39.95

Learn more

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

References

  1. Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society Public Consultation Draft Report on Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests (2009). Available at http://oba.od.nih.gov/SACGHS/sacghs_public_comments.html

  2. Walsh, T. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 295, 1379–1388 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (Natl Acad. Press, 2005).

  4. Henry, M. R., Cho, M. K., Weaver, M. A. & Merz, J. F. J. Law. Med. Ethics. 31, 442–449 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cho, M. K. et al. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3–8 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. In the Public Interest: Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology (Assoc. Univ. Technol. Managers, 2007). Available at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/OTL/industry/resources/whitepaper-10.pdf

  7. Jensen K. & Murray F. Science 310, 239–240 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robert Cook-Deegan, Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Misha Angrist, are at the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA. gelp@duke.edu ,

    Robert Cook-Deegan, Subhashini Chandrasekharan & Misha Angrist

Authors
  1. Robert Cook-Deegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Subhashini Chandrasekharan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Misha Angrist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This article represents the authors' opinions and not those of the Secretary's Advisory Committee for Genetics, Health and Society or its task force. See Editorial, page 386 , and online at http://tinyurl.com/dlnksh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S. & Angrist, M. The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature 458, 405–406 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/458405a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/458405a

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