Search results

This article examines the enforcement of gene and other research tool patents in Australia. An empirical analysis of patenting practices in the Australian medical biotechnology industry showed heightened concern about the impact of patents on research and diagnostic testing, but provided little evidence to support these concerns at that time. Since then, the Australian company Genetic Technologies Ltd. has been enforcing its patents for non-coding DNA sequences. The governments of Australia are encouraging the biotechnology industry to better protect and enforce intellectual property rights, but recognize these needs to be balanced against access to healthcare. The article discusses proposals made by the Australian Law Reform Commission to adjust the balance, both by tightening the requirements for obtaining patents and by introducing various options to assist providers of diagnostic services and others in using patented inventions, but at the same time maintaining the incentive to innovate.

Owoeye, OA orcid:0000-0001-8716-2886 ; The problem of how to mitigate the impact of pharmaceutical patents on the delivery of essential medicines to the world's poor is as far from being resolved as it has ever been. Extensive academic commentary and policy debate have achieved little in terms of practical outcomes. Although international instruments are now in place allowing countries to enact legislation that permits the generic manufacture of patented pharmaceuticals, many countries have not yet enacted appropriate legislation and most of those that have yet to make use of it. One major problem is that the requirements of international instruments and implementing legislation are seen as being so stringent as to be unworkable. This paper calls for fresh attempts to enact workable legislation that fits within the prescribed requirements of international law without going beyond them. It argues that high-income nations should refocus on their moral obligation to enact appropriate legislative mechanisms and provide appropriate incentives for their use. Draft legislation currently being considered in Australia is used to illustrate how workable legislative frameworks can be developed.

<b><i>Objectives:</i></b> The necessity for biobanks to share their resources with third parties poses potential risks to public trust and the intention to participate in genetic research. We explore the effects of data sharing and the type of third-party access (public vs. private) on public trust and, in turn, the intention to participate in biobank research. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> An experimental design was used to assess a national sample of 1,701 Australians via a computer-assisted telephone interview. <b><i>Results:</i></b> The results revealed that trust and the intention to participate significantly decreased in relation to private compared to public biobanks, and when access to third-party researchers was allowed compared to when it was not. Somewhat surprisingly, no differences were found in relation to the third party being international compared to Australian, but trust and the intention to participate were significantly eroded when private third parties were allowed access. Those with a university education were particularly distrustful of private biobanks and biobanks that allowed access, while those who were more aware of genetic databases appeared more confident with biobanks sharing with private-sector third parties. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The pattern of results suggests that public awareness of the need for biobanks to share their resources widely needs to be increased to maintain public trust and support.

The landscape for patenting products and processes tied to the natural world has changed dramatically in recent times as a result of a series of decisions of the US Supreme Court, particularly Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc. 569 U.S. 576 (2013) (Myriad). This article critically analyses these decisions and the multitude of lower court decisions that have followed them. This analysis provides support for the growing concern in the United States that it will be increasingly difficult to use the patent system to encourage the development of therapies and research intermediates useful in developing new therapeutic interventions. One option being posited in the industry to deal with this problem is to lobby Congress to reform the threshold patent eligibility standard in US patent law. It is argued in this paper that a more nuanced approach is preferable. Using the experience in Australia as a case study, this paper argues that such an approach is feasible. Australia has been chosen for analysis because the threshold patent eligibility standard is similar in both countries, much more so that with the European Union, and because the highest court in Australia has ruled on essentially the same patent as in Myriad, in D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics, Inc [2015] HCA 35. In addition to the nuanced approach to eligibility currently exercised by the Australian courts and patent office, Australia also has a number of post-grant options for addressing the dynamics of patent monopolies. These include experimental use, compulsory licensing, and government use. It is concluded that, while it would be impractical to attempt to replicate the Australian environment in the United States, there is no reason why some lessons can't be learned from the Australian experience with patenting nature.

Public participation, transparency and accountability are three of the pillars of good governance. These pillars become particularly important for innovative, personalised health technologies, because of the tendency of these technologies to raise distinct scientific, ethical, legal and social issues. Genome editing is perhaps the most personal of all innovative health technologies, involving precise modifications to an individual's genome. This article focuses on the adequacy of current requirements for public participation, transparency and accountability in the governance of the market authorisation for genome edited products. Although clinical trials for genome edited products are only just underway, lessons can be drawn from the marketing approvals pathways for related gene therapy products. This article provides a broad overview of the regulatory pathways that have been adopted by the US Food and Drugs Administration, the European Medicines Authority, and the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for reviewing gene therapy products for marketing approval. This analysis focuses on the extent to which public participation processes and transparency and accountability of review pathways are incorporated into marketing approval policy and practice. Following this review, the article proposes the application of Sheila Jasanoff's "technologies of humility" as a foundation for meaningfully incorporating these pillars of good governance into regulatory processes for the review of products of genome editing. We conclude by articulating clear mechanisms for operationalising technologies of humility in the context of public participation, transparency and accountability, providing a blueprint for future policy development.

Sharing of genomic and associated data is essential to clinical practice and biomedical research, and is increasingly encouraged by journals and funding bodies. Grappling with the range of legal and ethical issues raised by genomic data sharing presents a significant challenge, given the diversity of practices: from defined sharing of individual patient data, to broad-scale public sharing of research data, to uploading of direct-to-consumer test data by community members. Most commentary to date has discussed these issues in broad terms, but the debate can only progress if we engage with more granularity, grounded in jurisdictional and contextual specifics. We developed an empirical approach, creating a set of prototypical scenarios that capture the diversity of current genomic data sharing practices, which allows legal and ethical analysis of key issues at a granular level. The specificity of this approach provides a strong foundation for developing useful and relevant regulatory recommendations.

The discovery of the two inherited susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 in the mid-1990s created the possibility of predictive genetic testing and led to the establishment of specific medical programmes for those at high risk of developing breast cancer in the UK, US and Europe. The book provides a coherent structure for examining the diversity of practices and discourses that surround developments linked to BRCA genetics, and to the evolving field of genetics more broadly. It will be of interest to students and scholars of anthropology, sociology, history of science, STS, public health and bioethics. Chapter 8 of this book is freely available as a downloadable Open Access PDF under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 3.0 license. https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/tandfbis/rt-files/docs/Open+Access+Chapters/9780415824064_oachapter8.pdf