ArticleTrends in biotechnology2010
Patently unpatentable: implications of the Myriad court decision on genetic diagnostics.
Article in Trends in biotechnology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The New Precision Stewards?Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Research Translation and Emerging Health Technologies: Synthetic Biology and Beyond.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2018Article
- Naked bodies, naked genomes: the special (but not exceptional) nature of genomic information.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2015Review
- Non-invasive prenatal testing: a review of international implementation and challenges.International journal of women's health · 2015Review
- Gene patents: a broken incentives system.Journal of religion and health · 2013Review
- The European BRCA patent oppositions and appeals: coloring inside the lines.Nature biotechnology · 2013Article
- Best ethical practices for clinicians and laboratories in the provision of noninvasive prenatal testing.Prenatal diagnosis · 2013Article
- 23 and Me, We, and You: direct-to-consumer genetics, intellectual property, and informed consent.Trends in biotechnology · 2013Article
- The fate and future of patents on human genes and genetic diagnostic methods.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2012Review
- Single-step capture and sequencing of natural DNA for detection of BRCA1 mutations.Genome research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The recent decision in the case Association for Molecular Pathology et al. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office et al. shocked the biotechnology industry. Although the case could be overturned on appeal, it will probably change how gene patents are written. The effects of the decision might be most strongly felt in the short term by clinical laboratories that develop new genetic tests based on single genes. However, evidence suggests that patents are less effective as an incentive to innovate in the field of genetic diagnostics than for pharmaceuticals. In addition, as genomic technologies move towards whole-genome analysis, policy arguments for patent protection for single genes become less compelling. It is clear that the intellectual property model challenged by the Myriad decision will have to be replaced if new genetic technologies are to achieve their full potential in promoting 'the progress of science and useful arts'.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.