ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2012
The fate and future of patents on human genes and genetic diagnostic methods.
Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Continental drift? Do European clinical genetic testing laboratories have a patent problem?European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2019Article
- Gene patents still alive and kicking: their impact on provision of genetic testing for long QT syndrome in the Canadian public health-care system.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2017Article
- After Myriad, what makes a gene patent claim 'markedly different' from nature?Nature biotechnology · 2017Article
- Eteplirsen in the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy.Drug design, development and therapy · 2017Review
- Are the gene-patent storm clouds dissipating? A global snapshot.Nature biotechnology · 2015Article
- Ethics education for clinician-researchers in genetics: The combined approach.Applied & translational genomics · 2015Review
- Do recent US Supreme Court rulings on patenting of genes and genetic diagnostics affect the practice of genetic screening and diagnosis in prenatal and reproductive care?Prenatal diagnosis · 2014Review
- Looking back and moving forward: an historical perspective from laboratory genetic counselors.Journal of genetic counseling · 2014Article
- The European BRCA patent oppositions and appeals: coloring inside the lines.Nature biotechnology · 2013Article
- Absolute and Relative Quantification of Multiplex DNA Assays Based on an Elemental Labeling Strategy.Angewandte Chemie (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2013Article
- Absolute and relative quantification of multiplex DNA assays based on an elemental labeling strategy.Angewandte Chemie (International ed. in English) · 2013Article
- Patient-controlled encrypted genomic data: an approach to advance clinical genomics.BMC medical genomics · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the 1970s, patents on human genes and genetic diagnostic methods have been granted under the assumption that they stimulate the development of diagnostic methods and therapeutic products. However, the principles and practices of patenting vary between jurisdictions. Do patent holders, researchers, clinicians and patients really benefit from this heterogeneous patent system? We discuss the problems that result from the current system and suggest how they might be solved by altering the way in which patents are granted and/or licensed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22596320What 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.