When it comes to gene patenting, policy makers may be responding more to high-profile media controversies than to systematic data about the issues.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Current Genetic Medicine Reports Open Access 11 September 2014
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Danish Council of Ethics. Patenting Human Genes and Stem Cells (Danish Council of Ethics, Copenhagen, 2004).
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The Ethics of Patenting DNA: A Discussion Paper (Nuffield Council on Bioethics, London, 2002).
Resnik, D.B. J. Law Med. Ethics 29, 152–165 (2001).
House of Commons. Standing Committee on Health. Assisted Human Reproduction: Building Families (Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2001).
Williams-Jones, B. Health Law J. 10, 123–146 (2002).
Kevles, D. & Berkowitz, A. Brooklyn Law Rev. 67, 233–248 (2001).
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).
Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).
Merges, R.P. & Nelson, R.R. Columbia Law Rev. 90, 839–916 (1990).
Scotchmer, S. J. Econ. Perspect. 5, 29–41 (1991).
Caulfield, T. Community Genet. 8, 223–227 (2005).
Nelson, R.R. Res. Policy 33, 455–471 (2004).
David, P.A. J. Theoret. Institutional Econ. 160, 1–26 (2004).
Ontario Ministry of Health. Genetics, Testing and Gene Patenting: Charting New Territory in Healthcare (Government of Ontario, Toronto, 2002).
National Academy of Sciences. A Patent System for the 21st Century (National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2004).
Cho, M. Am. Assoc. Clin. Chem. Newslett. 47–53 (1998).
Merz, J.F., Kriss, A.G., Leonard, D.G.B. & Cho, M.K. Nature 415, 577–579 (2002).
Benzie, R. The National Post A:15 (September 20, 2001).
Jensen, K. & Murray, F. Science 310, 239–240 (2005).
Walsh, J.P., Cohen, W.M. & Arora, A. Science 299, 1021 (2003).
Walsh, J.P., Cho, C. & Cohen, W.M. Science 309, 2002–2003 (2005).
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).
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>
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>
Cohen, J. Science 285, 28 (1999).
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).
Cho, M.K. et al. J. Mol. Diagn. 5, 3–8 (2003).
Campbell, E.G. et al. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 473–480 (2002).
Walsh, J.P. & Hong, W. Nature 422, 801–802 (2003).
Grushcow, J. J. Legal Studies 33, 59–84 (2004).
Vogeli, C. et al. Acad. Med. 81:2, 128–136 (2006).
Blumenthal, D. et al. Acad. Med. 81, 137–145 (2006).
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).
Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y. & Gross, G.P. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 289, 454–465 (2003).
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).
Agrawal, A. & Henderson R. Management Science 48, 44–60 (2002)
Dasgupta, P. & Maskin, E. Econ. J. 97, 581–595 (1987).
Van Overwalle, G. & Van Zimmeren, E. Chizaiken Forum 64, 42–49 (2006).
Kieff, F.S. Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 95, 691–706 (2001).
Pressman, L. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 24, 31–39 (2006).
Eisenberg, R. Science 299, 1018–1019 (2003).
Rohrbaugh, M.I. Fed. Regist. 70, 18413–18415 (2005).
Grimm, D. Science 312, 1862–1866 (2006).
Ravetz, J.R. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems (Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1973).
Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Human Genetic Materials, Intellectual Property and the Health Sector (CBAC, Ottawa, 2006).
World Health Organization. Public Health Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights (WHO Press, Geneva, 2006).
Australian Government Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property. Patents and Experimental Use (ACIP, Sydney, 2005).
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).
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).
World Health Organization. Genetics, Genomics and the Patenting of DNA: Review of Potential Implications for Health in Developing Countries (WHO Press, Geneva, 2005).
Australian Law Reform Commission. Report 99—Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health (SOS Printing Group, Sydney, 2004).
Federal Trade Commission. To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy (FTC, Washington, DC, 2003).
The Royal Society. Keeping Science Open: The Effects of Intellectual Property Policy on the Conduct of Science (TRS, London, 2003).
Public Health Genetics Unit. Intellectual Property Rights and Genetics (PHGU, Cambridge, 2003).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights & Licensing Practices (OECD Publications, Paris, 2002).
Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting of Higher Life Forms and Related Issues (CBAC, Ottawa, 2002).
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.
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
This article is cited by
Nature Biotechnology (2015)
Nature Biotechnology (2015)
Journal of Religion and Health (2014)
Current Genetic Medicine Reports (2014)