ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine2014
Baseball bats and chocolate chip cookies: the judicial treatment of DNA in the myriad genetics litigation.
Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a controversial ruling that naturally occurring DNA segments are "products of nature" and therefore not patentable subject matter. At this intersection between science and law, in litigation of crucial importance to patients, science, and multibillion-dollar biotech enterprises, the appellate judges sidestepped genetics and engaged in a war of metaphors from diamonds to chocolate chip cookies. This case is not an outlier. Apprehensive judges and juries in both Canada and the United States find many convenient excuses to avoid coming to grips with the underlying science in patent cases. But this is simply not acceptable. Legal rulings must be, and must seem to be, well grounded, as a matter of both law and science. The legitimacy of court decisions in the eyes of the stakeholders and the broader public depends on it.
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.