Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26618158›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2015

Interfacing of Science, Medicine and Law: The Stem Cell Patent Controversy in the United States and the European Union.

Sonya Davey, Neil Davey, Qian Gu, Na Xu, Rajet Vatsa, Samir Devalaraja, Paul Harris, Sreenivas Gannavaram, Raj Dave, Ananda Chakrabarty

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sonya DaveyDepartment of Geography, University of Cambridge Cambridge, UK ; Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Neil DaveyHarvard University Cambridge, MA, USA.
Qian GuThe George Washington University School of Law Washington, DC, USA ; Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Washington, DC, USA.
Na XuThe George Washington University School of Law Washington, DC, USA.
Rajet VatsaHarvard University Cambridge, MA, USA.
Samir DevalarajaPerelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Paul HarrisPillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Washington, DC, USA.
Sreenivas GannavaramDivision of Emerging and Transfusion Transmitted Diseases, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration Bethesda, MD, USA.
Raj DavePillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Washington, DC, USA.
Ananda ChakrabartyMicrobiology and Immunology, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago Chicago, IL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The patent eligibility of stem cells-particularly those derived from human embryos-has long been under debate in both the scientific and legal communities. On the basis of moral grounds, the European Patent Office (EPO) has refrained from granting patents for stem cells obtained through the destruction of human embryos. On the contrary, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has historically granted patents regarding the isolation and use of human embryonic and other stem cells. To date, these US patents remain valid despite an increasing onslaught of challenges in court. However, recent precedents established in US courts significantly narrow the scope of patent eligibility within biotechnology. This article compares the implications of recent legal changes on stem cell patent eligibility between the EU and US.

Indexed as

human embryolegal interpretationstem cell commericalizationstem cell patent elibilitystem cell patent ethics

Identifiers

PMID26618158
PMCPMC4639617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.