DNA patents and diagnostics: Not a pretty picture

Julia Carbone; E. Richard Gold; Bhaven Sampat; Subhashini Chandrasekharan; Lori Knowles; Misha Angrist; Robert Cook-Deegan

doi:10.1038/nbt0810-784

DNA patents and diagnostics: Not a pretty picture

Julia Carbone, E. Richard Gold, Bhaven Sampat, Subhashini Chandrasekharan, Lori Knowles, Misha Angrist, Robert Cook-Deegan

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

28 Scopus citations

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	784-791
Number of pages	8
Journal	Nature biotechnology
Volume	28
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0810-784
State	Published - Aug 2010
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Biotechnology
Bioengineering
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Molecular Medicine
Biomedical Engineering

Access to Document

10.1038/nbt0810-784

Cite this

@article{fbf1278888db4eacaf048d3d42335b56,

title = "DNA patents and diagnostics: Not a pretty picture",

author = "Julia Carbone and Gold, {E. Richard} and Bhaven Sampat and Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Lori Knowles and Misha Angrist and Robert Cook-Deegan",

note = "Funding Information: In the case of Myriad, initial research took place at the University of Utah—with public funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA). The researchers then spun off Myriad, which attracted investment from Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN, USA) and succeeded in patenting BRCA1 and a diagnostic test for breast cancer (patents that were ultimately jointly assigned to the University of Utah, Myriad and the NIH). Rather than licensing out the test to clinical geneticists and laboratories around the world, Myriad required initial testing in each family to be performed at its laboratories in Salt Lake City. In the United States, the company sent out cease-and-desist letters to laboratories—both academic and commercial—already performing tests when the patent was issued. Funding Information: One prominent example of disputed norms is the controversy between Myriad and the University of Pennsylvania Genetic Diagnostic Laboratory (GDL; Philadelphia, PA). Although Myriad states that it is generally supportive of research, it nevertheless sent GDL a cease-and- desist letter because it did not consider GDL{\textquoteright}s activities to be research. To Myriad, GDL{\textquoteright}s provision of testing services to researchers was commercial, not a research service14. GDL took the position, however, that its activities, which supported others{\textquoteright} research, fell within the norm of tolerated research use, and much of the contested testing was part of clinical trials funded by the NCI, which is clearly clinical research. Much debate ensued, leaving many researchers with the (wrong) impression that Myriad would not tolerate any form of research.",

year = "2010",

month = aug,

doi = "10.1038/nbt0810-784",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "28",

pages = "784--791",

journal = "Biotechnology",

issn = "1087-0156",

publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - DNA patents and diagnostics

T2 - Not a pretty picture

AU - Carbone, Julia

AU - Gold, E. Richard

AU - Sampat, Bhaven

AU - Chandrasekharan, Subhashini

AU - Knowles, Lori

AU - Angrist, Misha

AU - Cook-Deegan, Robert

N1 - Funding Information: In the case of Myriad, initial research took place at the University of Utah—with public funding from the US National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA). The researchers then spun off Myriad, which attracted investment from Eli Lilly (Indianapolis, IN, USA) and succeeded in patenting BRCA1 and a diagnostic test for breast cancer (patents that were ultimately jointly assigned to the University of Utah, Myriad and the NIH). Rather than licensing out the test to clinical geneticists and laboratories around the world, Myriad required initial testing in each family to be performed at its laboratories in Salt Lake City. In the United States, the company sent out cease-and-desist letters to laboratories—both academic and commercial—already performing tests when the patent was issued. Funding Information: One prominent example of disputed norms is the controversy between Myriad and the University of Pennsylvania Genetic Diagnostic Laboratory (GDL; Philadelphia, PA). Although Myriad states that it is generally supportive of research, it nevertheless sent GDL a cease-and- desist letter because it did not consider GDL’s activities to be research. To Myriad, GDL’s provision of testing services to researchers was commercial, not a research service14. GDL took the position, however, that its activities, which supported others’ research, fell within the norm of tolerated research use, and much of the contested testing was part of clinical trials funded by the NCI, which is clearly clinical research. Much debate ensued, leaving many researchers with the (wrong) impression that Myriad would not tolerate any form of research.

PY - 2010/8

Y1 - 2010/8

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955458291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955458291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1038/nbt0810-784

DO - 10.1038/nbt0810-784

M3 - Comment/debate

C2 - 20697400

AN - SCOPUS:77955458291

VL - 28

SP - 784

EP - 791

JO - Biotechnology

JF - Biotechnology

SN - 1087-0156

IS - 8

ER -

DNA patents and diagnostics: Not a pretty picture

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this