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.

Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies

Nature Biotechnology volume 24, pages 1091–1094 (2006)Cite this article

When it comes to gene patenting, policy makers may be responding more to high-profile media controversies than to systematic data about the issues.

Gene patenting has attracted intense scrutiny for decades, raising a host of ethical, legal and economic concerns. Much of the policy debate has focused on seemingly quantifiable and practical concerns about the effect of patents on access to useful technologies in the contexts of both research and the clinic. Here, we summarize the dominant policy concerns and the events that have motivated these debates. We then reflect on what the evidence now says about the major concerns articulated in policy reports. We conclude by discussing what might explain some of the disparity between the empirical evidence and the policy focus.

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

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

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

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Danish Council of Ethics. Patenting Human Genes and Stem Cells (Danish Council of Ethics, Copenhagen, 2004).

  2. The Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA: A Discussion Paper (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2002).

  3. Resnik, D.B. J. Law Med. Ethics 29, 152–165 (2001).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. House of Commons. Standing Committee on Health. Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families (Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2001).

  5. Williams-Jones, B. Health Law J. 10, 123–146 (2002).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kevles, D. & Berkowitz, A. Brooklyn Law Rev. 67, 233–248 (2001).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. National Academy of Sciences. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005).

  8. Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Merges, R.P. & Nelson, R.R. Columbia Law Rev. 90, 839–916 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scotchmer, S. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 29–41 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Caulfield, T. Community Genet. 8, 223–227 (2005).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson, R.R. Res. Policy 33, 455–471 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. David, P.A. J. Theoret. Institutional Econ. 160, 1–26 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ontario Ministry of Health. Genetics, Testing and Gene Patenting: Charting New Territory in Healthcare (Government of Ontario, Toronto, 2002).

  15. National Academy of Sciences. A Patent System for the 21st Century (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004).

  16. Cho, M. Am. Assoc. Clin. Chem. Newslett. 47–53 (1998).

  17. Merz, J.F., Kriss, A.G., Leonard, D.G.B. & Cho, M.K. Nature 415, 577–579 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Benzie, R. The National Post A:15 (September 20, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Walsh, J.P., Cohen, W.M. & Arora, A. Science 299, 1021 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Nicol, D. & Nielsen, J. Patents and medical biotechnology: An empirical analysis of issues facing the Australian industry—Occasional Paper No. 6 (Centre for Law & Genetics, Sandy Bay, Australia, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nagaoka, S. Presentation to OECD Conference on Research Use of Patented Inventions (Madrid, May 18–19, 2006). <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/36816178.pdf>

  24. Straus, J. Presentation to the BMBF & OECD Workshop on Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices (Berlin, January 24–25, 2002). <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/22/1817995.pdf>

  25. Cohen, J. Science 285, 28 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Walsh, J.P., Cohen, W.M. & Arora, A. Patenting and licensing of research tools and biomedical innovation. in Cohen, W.M. & Merrill, S. (eds.) Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2003).

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Campbell, E.G. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 473–480 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Walsh, J.P. & Hong, W. Nature 422, 801–802 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Grushcow, J. J. Legal Studies 33, 59–84 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vogeli, C. et al. Acad. Med. 81:2, 128–136 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Blumenthal, D. et al. Acad. Med. 81, 137–145 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Cohen, W.M., Florida, R. & Goe, R. University-industry research centers in the United States. Report to the Ford Foundation (Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y. & Gross, G.P. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 289, 454–465 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Stern, S. & Murray, F.E. Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anticommons hypothesis: NBER Working Paper No. W11465 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Agrawal, A. & Henderson R. Management Science 48, 44–60 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Dasgupta, P. & Maskin, E. Econ. J. 97, 581–595 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Van Overwalle, G. & Van Zimmeren, E. Chizaiken Forum 64, 42–49 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kieff, F.S. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 95, 691–706 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pressman, L. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 31–39 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Eisenberg, R. Science 299, 1018–1019 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rohrbaugh, M.I. Fed. Regist. 70, 18413–18415 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Grimm, D. Science 312, 1862–1866 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Ravetz, J.R. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1973).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Human Genetic Materials, Intellectual Property and the Health Sector (CBAC, Ottawa, 2006).

  46. World Health Organization. Public Health Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights (WHO Press, Geneva, 2006).

  47. Australian Government Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property. Patents and Experimental Use (ACIP, Sydney, 2005).

  48. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee Expert Working Party on Human Genetic Materials. Human Genetics Materials: Making Canada's Intellectual Property Regime Work for the Health of Canadians (CBAC, Ottawa, 2005).

  49. National Research Council Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation and Public Health (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2005).

  50. World Health Organization. Genetics, Genomics and the Patenting of DNA: Review of Potential Implications for Health in Developing Countries (WHO Press, Geneva, 2005).

  51. Australian Law Reform Commission. Report 99—Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health (SOS Printing Group, Sydney, 2004).

  52. Federal Trade Commission. To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy (FTC, Washington, DC, 2003).

  53. The Royal Society. Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (TRS, London, 2003).

  54. Public Health Genetics Unit. Intellectual Property Rights and Genetics (PHGU, Cambridge, 2003).

  55. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights & Licensing Practices (OECD Publications, Paris, 2002).

  56. Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues (CBAC, Ottawa, 2002).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Lori Sheremeta, Richard Gold, Michael Sharp, C.J. Murdoch and Robyn Hyde-Lay for the invaluable research assistance; Genome Alberta, AHFMR, the Stem Cell Network and AFMNet for the funding support; and the US National Human Genome Research Institute and Department of Energy (R.C.-D.). We would also like to thank all of the participants of the Genome Alberta Banff Patenting Workshop (May 2006) for insightful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Law Institute, University of Alberta, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield

  2. IGSP Center for Genome Ethics, Law & Policy, Sanford Institute of Public Policy and Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA

    Robert M Cook-Deegan

  3. Washington University School of Law and the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

    F Scott Kieff

  4. School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

    John P Walsh

Authors
  1. Timothy Caulfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert M Cook-Deegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. F Scott Kieff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John P Walsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R., Kieff, F. et al. Evidence and anecdotes: an analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nat Biotechnol 24, 1091–1094 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0906-1091

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0906-1091

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