Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 263–284 | Cite as

It’s About Scientific Secrecy, Dummy: A Better Equilibrium Among Genomics Patenting, Scientific Research and Health Care

Article
  • 168 Downloads

Abstract

This paper offers a different pragmatic and patent-based approach to concerns regarding the negative effects of genetic-based patenting on advancing scientific research and providing adequate and accessible health care services. At the basis of this approach lies an explication of a mandatory provisional patented paper procedure (PPPA), designed for genetic-based patents and administered by leading scientific journals in the field, while officially acknowledged by the USPTO, and subsequently by other patent offices as well. It is argued that the uniqueness of PPPAs lies in subsequently mitigating the negative ramifications of genetic patents on scientific research and genetic-based health care services, while basing such mitigation on a patents’ advocate viewpoint that neither discards the patent system nor jeopardizes its integrity.

Keywords

Patents Challenge Scientific research Health care Resolution 

References

  1. Andrews, L. B. (2002a). The gene patent dilemma: Balancing commerical incentives with health needs. Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy, 2, 65–106.Google Scholar
  2. Andrews, L. B. (2002b). Genes and patent policy: Rethinking intellectual property rights. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3(10), 803–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin, F. (2002). Integrating genomics technologies in health care: Practice and policy challenges and opportunities. Physiological Genomics, 8(1), 33.Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R. (1980). Effective choice in the prisoner’s dilemma. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 24(1), 3–25.Google Scholar
  5. Axelrod, R. (1981). The emergence of cooperation among egoists. American Political Science Review, 75(2), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981). The emergence of cooperation. Science, 211, 1390–1396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bagley, M. A. (2006). Academic discourse and propriety rights: Putting patents in their proper place. Boston College Law Review, 47(2), 217–274.Google Scholar
  8. Benowitz, S. (2002). French challenge to BRCA1 patent underlies European discontent. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 94, 80–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentwich, I., Avniel, A., Karov, Y., Aharonov, R., Gilad, S., Barad, O., et al. (2005). Identification of hundreds of conserved and nonconserved human microRNAs. Nature Genetics, 37(7), 766–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E. G., Anderson, M. S., Causino, N., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA, 277(15), 1224–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Borger, J. (1999). Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease. Guardian (London), 1.Google Scholar
  12. Brenner v. Manson. (1996). 383 U.S., 519,534.Google Scholar
  13. Brock, G. (1995). Is redistribution to help the needy just? Analysis, 55, 50–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brody, B. (2000). Redistribution without egalitarianism. In P. Vallentyne & H. Steiner (Eds.), Left-libertarianism and its critics: The contemporary debate. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  15. Buchanan, A. (1981). Deriving welfare rights from libertarian rights. In P. Brown, C. Johnson, & P. Vernier (Eds.), Income support: Conceptual and policy issues. Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  16. Campbell, E. G., Clarridge, B. R., Gokhale, M., Birenbaum, L., Hilgartner, S., Holtzman, N. A., et al. (2002). Data withholding in academic genetics evidence from a national survey. JAMA: American Medical Association. Google Scholar
  17. Caulfield, T., Cook-Deegan, R. M., Kieff, F. S., & Walsh, J. P. (2006). Evidence and anecdotes: An analysis of human gene patenting controversies. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 1091–1094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Caulfield, T., Gold, E. R., & Cho, M. K. (2000). Patenting human genetic material: Refocusing the debate. Nature Reviews Genetics, 1(3), 227–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cipra, B. (1993). Electronic time-stamping: The notary public goes digital. Science, 261(5118), 162–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook-Deegan, R., Chandrasekharan, S., & Angrist, M. (2009). The dangers of diagnostic monopolies. Nature, 458(7237), 405–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cummins, J. M., & Velculescu, V. E. (2006). Implications of micro-RNA profiling for cancer diagnosis. Oncogene, 25(46), 6220–6227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Czarnitzki, D., Glanzel, W., & Hussinger, K. (2009). Heterogeneity of patenting activity and its implications for scientific research. Research Policy, 38(1), 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Damstedt, B. G. (2002). Limiting locke: A natural law justification for the fair use doctrine. Yale Law Journal, 112, 1179–1221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Daniels, N. (2006). Equity and population health: Toward a broader bioethics agenda. Hastings Center Report, pp. 22–35.Google Scholar
  25. David, P. A. (2004). Can “Open Science” be protected from the evolving regime of IPR protections? Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 160(1), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Diamond-v.-Chakrabarty. (1980). 447 U.S.Google Scholar
  27. DiMasi, J. A., & Grabowski, H. G. (2007). Should the patent system for new medicines be abolished? Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 82(5), 488–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dorsett, Y., & Tuschl, T. (2004). siRNAs: Applications in functional genomics and potential as therapeutics. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 3(4), 318–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Dykxhoorn, D. M., & Lieberman, J. (2004). The silent revolution: RNA interference as basic biology, research tool, and therapeutic. Annual Reviews of Medicine, 56, 401–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ebersole, T. J., Guthrie, M. N., & Goldstein, J. A. (2005). Patent pools as a solution to the licensing problems of diagnostic genetics. Intellectual Property and Technology Law Journal, 17(1), 6–13.Google Scholar
  31. Eisenberg, R. S. (1987). Proprietary rights and the norms of science in biotechnology research. Yale Law Journal, 97(2), 177–231 [225].Google Scholar
  32. Eisenberg, R. S. (2006). Patents and data-sharing in public science. Ind Corp Change, 15(6), 1013–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fabrizio, K. R., & Di Minin, A. (2008). Commercializing the laboratory: Faculty patenting and the open science environment. Research Policy, 37(5), 914–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Farrelly, C. (2007). Gene patents and justice. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 41(2), 147–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Fed. Cir. (1996). Vitronics Corp v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F3d 1576, 1583.Google Scholar
  36. Federal Register. (2008). 73(158), 47535, 47540.Google Scholar
  37. Feng, H., & Wah, C. C. (2002). Private key generation from on-line handwritten signatures. Information Management & Computer Security, 10(4), 159–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Franzoni, C., & Scellato, G. (2008). Estimating the determinants of the patent-publication lags in Europe and USA. Proceedings of Academy of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 2008, 388–401.Google Scholar
  39. Fried, B. H. (2004). Left libertarianism: A review essay. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32(1), 66–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fried, B. H., & Quadrangle, C. (2004). Left libertarianism: A review essay. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(1).Google Scholar
  41. Fromer, J. C. (2009). Patent disclosure. Iowa Law Review, 94(2), 539–606.Google Scholar
  42. Gold, E. R. (2003). SARS genome patent: Symptom or disease? The Lancet, 361(9374), 2002–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gold, R., Caulfield, T. A., & Ray, P. N. (2002). Gene patents and the standard of care. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Google Scholar
  44. Gold, E. R., & Danial, K. L. (2003). Balancing trade in patents. Journal of World Intellectual Property, 6(1), 5–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gordon, W. J. (1993). Property right in self-expression: equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property, A. Yale LJ, 102(7), 1533–1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gordon, W. J. (2004). Render copyright unto Caesar: On taking incentives seriously. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 75–92.Google Scholar
  47. Grushcow, J. M. (2004). Measuring secrecy: A cost of the patent system revealed. The Journal of Legal Studies, 33(1), 59–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gugerell, C. (1994). The current practice of the European Patent Office. In Paper read at Council of Europe, Ethics and Human Genetics: Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium of the Council of Europe on Bioethics, at Strasbourg.Google Scholar
  49. Haber, S., & Stornetta, W. S. (1991). How to time-stamp a digital document. Journal of Cryptology, 3(2), 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hailwood, S. A. (1996). Exploring Nozick: Beyond anarchy, state and utopia (38–48 ed.). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  51. Hammond, S. M. (2006). MicroRNA therapeutics: A new niche for antisense nucleic acids. Trends in Molecular Medicine, 12(3), 99–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hanson, M. J. (1999). Biotechnology and commodification within health care. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 24(3), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Heller, M. A., & Eisenberg, R. S. (1998). Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science, 280(5364), 698–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ho, M. W. (2001). Why biotech patents are patently absurd: A scientific briefing on TRIPS and related issues. Third World Network.Google Scholar
  55. Hodges, D. (2001). U.S. Firm flexes its muscle over CA testing. Medical Post Google Scholar
  56. Hoedemaekers, R. (2001a). Commercialization, patents and moral assessment of biotechnology products. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 26(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hoedemaekers, R. (2001b). Human gene patents: Core issues in a multi-layered debate. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 4(2), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Huang, K. G., & Murray, F. E. (2008). Does patent strategy shape the long-run supply of public knowledge? Evidence from human genetics. Academy of Management Journal (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  59. Hughes, J. (1988). Philosophy of intellectual property. The Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366.Google Scholar
  60. Klein, R. D. (2007). Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States. Nature Biotechnology, 25(9), 989–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kramer, M. H. (1997). John Locke and the origins of private property. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lakhani, K. R., Jeppesen, L. B., Lohse, P. A., & Panetta, J. A. (2006). The value of openness in scientific problem solving.Google Scholar
  63. Locke, J. (1967). Two treatises of government. In P. Lasslet (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Long, P. (2002). Patent signals. University of Chicago Law Review, 69(2), 625–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Love, J., & Hubbard, T. (2007). The big idea: Prizes to stimulate R&D for new medicines. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 82(3), 1520–1554.Google Scholar
  66. Lu, J., Getz, G., Miska, E. A., Alvarez-Saavedra, E., Lamb, J., Peck, D., et al. (2005). MicroRNA expression profiles classify human cancers. Nature, 435(7043), 834–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Macer, D. R. J. (2002). Patent or perish? An ethical approach to patenting human genes and proteins. The Pharmacogenomics Journal, 2(6), 361–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Machan, T. R. (1997). Does libertarianism imply the welfare state? Res Publica, 3, 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Merrill, S. A., Levin, R. C., & Myers, M. B. (2004). A patent system for the 21st century. National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  70. Merz, J. F., & Cho, M. K. (2005). What are gene patents and why are people worried about them? Community Genetics, 8(4), 203–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Merz, J. F., Cho, M. K., Robertson, M. J., & Leonard, D. G. B. (1997). Disease gene patenting is a bad innovation. Molecular Diagnosis, 2(4), 299–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Merz, J. F., Kriss, A. G., Leonard, D. G. B., & Cho, M. K. (2002). Diagnostic testing fails the test: The pitfalls of patents are illustrated by the case of haemochromatosis. Nature, 415, 577–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Moore, A. D. (2004). Intellectual property and information control: philosophic foundations and contemporary issues. Transaction Pub.Google Scholar
  74. Murray, F., & Stern, S. (2007). Do formal intellectual property rights hinder the free flow of scientific knowledge? An empirical test of the anti-commons hypothesis. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63(4), 648–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Narveson, J. (1992). Libertarianism, postlibertarianism, and the welfarre state: Reply to Friedman. Critical Review, 6(1), 45–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Narveson, J. (1995). Contracting for liberty. In T. R. Machan (Ed.), Liberty for the twenty-first century: Contemporary libertarian thought. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  77. National-Academy-of-Sciences. (2005). Reaping the benefits of genomic and proteomic research: Intellectual property rights, innovation, and public health. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  78. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York: Basic Books Publishers.Google Scholar
  79. Otsuka, M. (2000). Self-ownership and equality: A Lockean reconciliation. In P. Vallentyne & H. Steiner (Eds.), Left-libertarianism and its critics: The contemporary debate. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  80. Papaioannou, T. (2008). Human gene patents and the question of liberal morality. Genomics, Society and Policy. Google Scholar
  81. Paradise, J., Andrews, L., & Holbrook, T. (2005). Intellectual property: Patents on human genes: An analysis of scope and claims. Science, 307(5715), 1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Peres, J. (1999). Genetic tests reduce neighborhood’s grief: Screening stops unsise matches. Chicago Tribune, 16.Google Scholar
  83. Petherbridge, L. (2007). Road map to revolution-patent-based open science. Maine Law Review, 59(2), 339–384.Google Scholar
  84. Pogge, T. W. (2005). Human rights and global health: A research program. Metaphilosophy, 36(1 2), 182–209.Google Scholar
  85. Poste, G., Roberts, D., & Gentry, S. (1997). Patents, ethics and improving healthcare. Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 124, 29–31.Google Scholar
  86. Pottage, A. (2007). The socio-legal implications of the new biotechnologies. Law and Social Science, 3, 321–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Rapoport, A. (1974). Prisoner’s dilemma: Recollections and observations. In A. Rapoport (Ed.), Game theory as a theory of conflict resolution. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Reiss, M. J. (1997). Is it right to patent DNA? Bulletin of Medical Ethics, 124, 21–24.Google Scholar
  89. Richards, J., Mulligan, L., & Graham, J. K. (1981). Property and people: Political usages of Locke and some contemporaries. Journal of the History of Ideas, 42, 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rogers, G. A. J. (1994). Locke’s philosophy: Content and context. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  91. Roin, B. N. (2009). Unpatentable drugs and the standards of patentability. Texas Law Review, 87(3), 503–570.Google Scholar
  92. Schatz, U. (1997). Biotechnology, patents and morality. In S. Sterckx (Ed.), Biotechnology, patents and morality. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  93. Schissel, A., Merz, J. F., & Cho, M. K. (1999). Survey confirms fears about licensing of genetic tests. Nature, 402(6758), 118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Sevilla, C., Julian-Reynier, C., Eisinger, F., Stoppa-Lyonnet, D., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., Sobol, H., et al. (2003). Impact of gene patents on the cost-effective delivery of care: The case of BRCA1 genetic testing. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 19(02), 287–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Shapiro, C. (2001). Navigating the patent thicket: Cross licenses, patent pools and standard settings. In A. B. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & C. Stern (Eds.), Innovation policy and the economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  96. Skevington, P. J., & Hart, T. P. (1997). Trusted third parties in electronic commerce. BT Technology Journal, 15(2), 39–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Smith, R. D., Thorsteindottir, H., Daar, A. S., Gold, E. R., & Singer, P. A. (2004). Genomics knowledge and equity: A global public goods perspective of the patent system. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 82, 385–389.Google Scholar
  98. Sterba, J. P. (1994). From liberty to welfare. Ethics, 105(1), 64–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Sterba, J. P. (2000). From liberty to welfare: An update. Social Theory and Practice, 26(3), 465–478.Google Scholar
  100. Stiglitz, J. E. (2006). Scrooge and intellectual property rights. British Medical Journal, 333(7582), 1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stott, M., & Valentine, J. (2004). Gene patenting and medical research: A view from a pharmaceutical company. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 3(4), 364–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Svatos, M. (1996). Biotechnology and the utilitarian argument for patents. Social Philosophy & Policy, 13(2), 113–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Svatos, M. (1997). Biotechnology, patents and morality: A philosophical commentary on the conference. In S. Sterckx (Ed.), Biotechnology, patents and morality. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  104. Tananbaum, G., & Holmes, L. (2008). The evolution of web-based peer-review systems. Learned Publishing, 21(4), 300–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real freedom for all. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  106. Walpole, I. R., Dawkins, H. J. S., Sinden, P. D., & Leary, P. C. O. (2003). Human gene patents: The possible impacts on genetic services healthcare. Medical Journal of Australia, 179(4), 203–205.Google Scholar
  107. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., & Cohen, W. M. (2005a) Science and law: View from the Bench: Patents and material transfers. Science.Google Scholar
  108. Walsh, J. P., Cho, C., & Cohen, W. M. (2005b). Science and the law. Nature.Google Scholar
  109. Ware, M. (2005). Online submissionand peer-review systems. Learned Publishing, 18(4), 245–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Williams-Jones, B. (2002). History of a gene patent: Tracing the development and application of commercial BRCA testing. Health Law Journal, 10, 123–146.Google Scholar
  111. Willison, D. J., & MacLeod, S. M. (2002). Patenting of genetic material: Are the benefits to society being realized? Canadian Medical Association Journal.Google Scholar
  112. Wolff, J. (1991). Robert Nozick: Property, justice and the minimal state. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  113. Wood, D. (2001). Reviews. Learned Publishing, 14(2), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. WTO. (1994). Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. In Marrakeslt Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C Legal InstrumentsResults of the Uruguay Round.Google Scholar
  115. Zemer, L. (2005). Making of a new copyright Lockean. The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 29, 891–947.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Health SciencesBen Gurion UniversityBeer ShevaIsrael

Personalised recommendations