Search

The idea of granting patents on human genetic material continues to cause controversy. The debate is largely focussed on the moral acceptability of human gene patents, the impact of gene patents on the research environment and the value of patents to stimulate innovation and the commercialization and dissemination of genetic discoveries. As highlighted by a recent controversy in Canada, patents can also have a profound effect on health policy and access to genetic services. Creative and bold patent reform initiatives are necessary to ensure that society will, to the highest degree possible, reap the health care benefits of the genetic revolution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts by governments, firms, and patients to deliver pioneering drugs for critical health needs face a challenge of diminishing efficiency in developing those medicines. While multi-sectoral collaborations involving firms, researchers, patients, and policymakers are widely recognized as crucial for countering this decline, existing incentives to engage in drug development predominantly target drug manufacturers and thereby do little to stimulate collaborative innovation. In this mini review, we consider the unexplored potential within pharmaceutical regulations to create novel incentives to encourage a diverse set of actors from the public and private spheres to engage in the kind of collaborative knowledge exchange requisite for fostering enhanced innovation in early drug development., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Sullivan and Gold.)

Ramachandran (2022) and Stevens (2022) provide careful responses to our article (Herder et al. 2022) about universities' failure to enhance access to innovations in the Global South. Ramachandran's (2022) reply underscores our concerns with the process, and Stevens (2022) brings an industry perspective to contest our conclusions., (Copyright © 2022 Longwoods Publishing.)

Publicly funded research has contributed enormously to many products that were developed in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet universities' technology transfer practices have failed to ensure that these products are available in low- and middle-income settings. Drawing upon the example of the lipid nanoparticle delivery technology - which was developed in and around the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, and incorporated into the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine - we show the divide between the university's stated principles to serve global health and technology transfer in practice. We outline three policy actions to realign universities' technology transfer practices in the service of global health., (Copyright © 2022 Longwoods Publishing.)

There is growing concern that the innovation system's ability to create wealth and attain social benefit is declining in effectiveness. This article explores the reasons for this decline and suggests a structure, the open science partnership, as one mechanism through which to slow down or reverse this decline. The article examines the empirical literature of the last century to document the decline. This literature suggests that the cost of research and innovation is increasing exponentially, that researcher productivity is declining, and, third, that these two phenomena have led to an overall flat or declining level of innovation productivity. The article then turns to three explanations for the decline - the growing complexity of science, a mismatch of incentives, and a balkanization of knowledge. Finally, the article explores the role that open science partnerships - public-private partnerships based on open access publications, open data and materials, and the avoidance of restrictive forms of intellectual property - can play in increasing the efficiency of the innovation system., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.)

: Attachment security priming has been extensively used in relationship research to explore the contents of mental models of attachment and examine the benefits derived from enhancing security. This systematic review explores the effectiveness of attachment security priming in improving positive affect and reducing negative affect in adults and children. The review searched four electronic databases for peer-reviewed journal articles. Thirty empirical studies met our inclusion criteria, including 28 adult and 2 child and adolescent samples. The findings show that attachment security priming improved positive affect and reduced negative affect relative to control primes. Supraliminal and subliminal primes were equally effective in enhancing security in one-shot prime studies (we only reviewed repeated priming studies using supraliminal primes so could not compare prime types in these). Global attachment style moderated the primed style in approximately half of the studies. Importantly, repeated priming studies showed a cumulative positive effect of security priming over time. We conclude that repeated priming study designs may be the most effective. More research is needed that explores the use of attachment security priming as a possible intervention to improve emotional wellbeing, in particular for adolescents and children., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

This review explores the recent divergence in international patent law relating to genes and associated subject matter. This divergence stems primarily from decisions of the highest courts in the United States and Australia on the eligibility of patent claims relating to the BRCA gene sequences. Patent offices, courts, and policy makers have struggled for many years to clearly articulate the bounds of patent claims on isolated and synthetic DNA and related products and processes, including methods for their use in genetic diagnostics. This review provides context to the current divergence by mapping key events in the gene patent journey from the early 1980s onward in five key jurisdictions: the United States, the member states of the European Patent Convention, Australia, Canada, and China. Early approaches to gene patenting had some commonalities across jurisdictions, which makes exploration of the recent divergence all the more interesting.There is insufficient empirical evidence to date to confidently predict the consequences of this recent divergence. However, it could potentially have a significant effect on local industry and on consumer access.

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects., Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed., (Copyright: © 2019 Gold ER et al.)

Mounting evidence indicates that worldwide, innovation systems are increasing unsustainable. Equally, concerns about inequities in the science and innovation process, and in access to its benefits, continue. Against a backdrop of growing health, economic and scientific challenges global stakeholders are urgently seeking to spur innovation and maximize the just distribution of benefits for all. Open Science collaboration (OS) - comprising a variety of approaches to increase open, public, and rapid mobilization of scientific knowledge - is seen to be one of the most promising ways forward. Yet, many decision-makers hesitate to construct policy to support the adoption and implementation of OS without access to substantive, clear and reliable evidence. In October 2017, international thought-leaders gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC offices of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful Open Science looks like. Delegates from developed and developing nations, national governments, science agencies and funding bodies, philanthropy, researchers, patient organizations and the biotechnology, pharma and artificial intelligence (AI) industries discussed the outcomes that would rally them to invest in OS, as well as wider issues of policy and implementation. This first of two reports, summarizes delegates' views on what they believe OS will deliver in terms of research, innovation and social impact in the life sciences. Through open and collaborative process over the next months, we will translate these success outcomes into a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assess when, where and how open science collaborations best advance research, innovation and social benefit. Ultimately, this work aims to develop and openly share tools to allow stakeholders to evaluate and re-invent their innovation ecosystems, to maximize value for the global public and patients, and address long-standing questions about the mechanics of innovation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors received financial support from the Tannenbaum Open Science Institute, where ERG heads the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee.

Areas of open science (OS) policy and practice are already relatively well-advanced in several countries and sectors through the initiatives of some governments, funders, philanthropy, researchers and the community. Nevertheless, the current research and innovation system, including in the focus of this report, the life sciences, remains weighted against OS. In October 2017, thought-leaders from across the world gathered at an Open Science Leadership Forum in the Washington DC office of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to share their views on what successful OS looks like. We focused on OS partnerships as this is an emerging model that aims to accelerate science and innovation. These outcomes are captured in a first meeting report: Defining Success in Open Science. On several occasions, these conversations turned to the challenges that must be addressed and new policies required to effectively and sustainably advance OS practice. Thereupon, in this report, we describe the concerns raised and what is needed to address them supplemented by our review of the literature, and suggest the stakeholder groups that may be best placed to begin to take action. It emerges that to be successful, OS will require the active engagement of all stakeholders: while the research community must develop research questions, identify partners and networks, policy communities need to create an environment that is supportive of experimentation by removing barriers. This report aims to contribute to ongoing discussions about OS and its implementation. It is also part of a step-wise process to develop and mobilize a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative indicators to assist global stakeholders in implementing high value OS collaborations. Currently in co-development through an open and international process, this set of measures will allow the generation of needed evidence on the influence of OS partnerships on research, innovation, and critical social and economic goals., Competing Interests: The authors received financial support from the Tanenbaum Open Science Institute, where ERG heads the Monitoring and Evaluation Committee., (© 2018 Ali-Khan SE et al.)

PurposeAlthough the Supreme Court of the United States limited their availability in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, gene patents remain important around the world. We examine the situation in Canada, where gene patents continue to exist, in light of recent litigation relating to familial long QT syndrome (LQTS).MethodsWe conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with 25 stakeholders across five Canadian provinces and supplemented this with a case analysis of the litigation.ResultsThe majority of LQTS testing was carried out outside Canada. Rising costs prompted several provinces to attempt to repatriate testing. However, LQTS gene patents stymied efforts, particularly in provinces where testing was more centralized, increasing costs and lowering innovation. It was in this context that a hospital launched a test case against the LQTS patents, resulting in a novel agreement to free Canadian hospitals from the effects of patents.ConclusionOur analysis reveals a rapidly evolving genetic test provision landscape under pressure from gene patents, strained budgets and poor collaboration. The litigation resulted in a blueprint for free public use of gene patents throughout Canada's health-care system, but it will only have value if governments are proactive in its use.

Support for open science is growing, but motivating researchers to participate in open science can be challenging. This in-depth qualitative study draws on interviews with researchers and staff at the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital during the development of its open science policy. Using thematic content analysis, we explore attitudes toward open science, the motivations and disincentives to participate, the role of patients, and attitudes to the eschewal of intellectual property rights. To be successful, an open science policy must clearly lay out expectations, boundaries and mechanisms by which researchers can engage, and must be shaped to explicitly support their values and those of key partners, including patients, research participants and industry collaborators.

Cellular immunotherapies promise to transform cancer care. However, they must overcome serious challenges, including: (1) the need to identify and characterize novel cancer antigens to expand the range of therapeutic targets; (2) the need to develop strategies to minimize serious adverse events, such as cytokine release syndrome and treatment-related toxicities; and (3) the need to develop efficient production/manufacturing processes to reduce costs. Here, we discuss whether these challenges might better be addressed through forms of public-private research collaborations, including public-private partnerships (PPPs), or whether these challenges are best addressed by way of standard market transactions. We reviewed 14 public-private relationships and 25 underlying agreements for the clinical development of cancer cellular immunotherapies in the US. Most were based on bilateral research agreements and pure market transactions in the form of service contracts and technology licenses, which is representative of the commercialization focus of the field. We make the strategic case that multiparty PPPs may better advance cancer antigen discovery and characterization and improved cell processing/manufacturing and related activities. In the rush toward the competitive end of the translational continuum for cancer cellular immunotherapy and the attendant focus on commercialization, many gaps have appeared in our understanding of cellular biology, immunology, and bioengineering. We conclude that the model of bilateral agreements between leading research institutions and the private sector may be inadequate to efficiently harness the interdisciplinary skills and knowledge of the public and private sectors to bring these promising therapies to the clinic for the benefit of cancer patients.

Translational research is often afflicted by a fundamental problem: a limited understanding of disease mechanisms prevents effective targeting of new treatments. Seeking to accelerate research advances and reimagine its role in the community, the Montreal Neurological Institute (Neuro) announced in the spring of 2016 that it is launching a five-year experiment during which it will adopt Open Science-open data, open materials, and no patenting-across the institution. The experiment seeks to examine two hypotheses. The first is whether the Neuro's Open Science initiative will attract new private partners. The second hypothesis is that the Neuro's institution-based approach will draw companies to the Montreal region, where the Neuro is based, leading to the creation of a local knowledge hub. This article explores why these hypotheses are likely to be true and describes the Neuro's approach to exploring them., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Much international debate over access to medicines focuses on whether patent law accords with international human rights law. This article argues that this is the wrong question to ask. Following an analysis of both patent and human rights law, this article suggests that the better approach is to focus on national debates over the best calibration of patent law to achieve national objectives., (© 2013 American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Inc.)

Multisectoral collaborative models for drug and therapeutic research and development (R&D) are emerging, requiring a recalibration of how intellectual property rights (IPRs) are used. Although these models appear promising, little study has been conducted on the optimal blend of sharing and exclusion as mediated through the proactive use or nonuse of IPRs. This Commentary is a call for a combination of theoretical and empirical analyses to build a comprehensive understanding of the interplay between formal IP laws, institutions that administer and manage IPRs, and the use of IPRs in practice to better construct and manage collaborations. Such analyses require outcome metrics formulated to measure the success of therapeutic outcomes and to capture the complexity of a highly networked R&D environment.

From the late 1980s, a storm surrounding the wisdom, ethics, and economics of human gene patents has been brewing. The various winds of concern in this storm touched on the impact of gene patents on basic and clinical research, on health care delivery, and on the ability of public health care systems to provide equal access when faced with costly patented genetic diagnostic tests. Myriad Genetics, Inc., along with its subsidiary, Myriad Genetic Laboratories, Inc., a small Utah-based biotechnology company, found itself unwittingly in the eye of this storm after a series of decisions it made regarding the commercialization of a hereditary breast cancer diagnostic test. This case study examine the background to Myriad's decisions, the context in which these decisions were made and the policy, research and business response to them.

Background to the Debate: Pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers argue that the current patent system is crucial for stimulating research and development (R&D), leading to new products that improve medical care. The financial return on their investments that is afforded by patent protection, they claim, is an incentive toward innovation and reinvestment into further R&D. But this view has been challenged in recent years. Many commentators argue that patents are stifling biomedical research, for example by preventing researchers from accessing patented materials or methods they need for their studies. Patents have also been blamed for impeding medical care by raising prices of essential medicines, such as antiretroviral drugs, in poor countries. This debate examines whether and how patents are impeding health care and innovation.

Genomics, the comprehensive examination of an organism's entire set of genes and their interactions, will have a major impact on the way disease is diagnosed, prevented and treated in the new millennium. Despite the tremendous potential it holds for improving global health, genomics challenges policy-makers to ensure that its benefits are harnessed equitably across populations and nations. The classification of genomics as a global public good and the inequity encountered in the development and application of genomics knowledge are outlined in this paper, We examine the effect of the current patent system on the distribution of costs and benefits relating to genomics knowledge between countries of different economic strength. The global public goods concept provides a normative economic rationale for the modification of certain aspects of the current patent system and for the creation of complementary mechanisms to respond to the health needs of low-income and middle-income countries.

Although never uncontroversial, intellectual property rights in biotechnological innovation are once more the focus of intense debate. The debate has yet to reach any result, largely because of several important errors in the way that various disciplines approach it. These errors include making assumptions without empirical basis and conflating various intellectual property regimes. What is needed is a transdisciplinary integrated method to correct these errors. Such a method can be implemented through the construction of alternative models of intellectual property protection designed to balance the various social, ethical and economic constraints that affect biotechnology.

Patents granted for biotechnological innovations continue to cause social and ethical dilemmas. For example, much controversy surrounds the patenting of genes that predispose to breast-cancer, and in the USA the debate continues about whether or not stem-cell technology should be accessible to all. In this report, we argue that some of these concerns can be addressed within national patent systems. In particular, we examine the "order public or morality" clause that exists in most national patent procedures. Furthermore, we propose that patents for inventions that present social and ethical questions should be subject to suspension by an independent, transparent, and responsible tribunal made up of specialists in ethics, research, and economics. This suspension should be reversible so that, when the social or ethical concerns have been addressed in an appropriate manner, the suspension can be lifted. Although controversial, such a flexible mechanism would assist governments and industry in enhancing public support for patents in the biotechnology area.

This article examines the changing debate over gene patenting and the possible connection between patent law and the ethical and policy concerns associated with the use of genetic testing technologies (e.g. the premature implementation and inappropriate marketing of genetic tests). Arguably, patent law helps to form the market forces that lead to these concerns. It is suggested that existing safeguards fail to control these concerns because of, for example, a lack of provider knowledge and an absence of an adequate regulatory framework. While patent law can be associated with a number of ethical and policy concerns, the article also suggests that patent law may have a positive role in reducing them. Patent law provides policy makers and the public with a focal point - the patent holder - upon which to attach accountability for ethical and legal conduct. The article concludes by inviting policy makers to consider the ways in which patent law could be modified in order to optimize its constructive influence.

World Trade Organization member states are preparing for the upcoming renegotiation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. One of the important elements of that renegotiation is the ethical considerations regarding the patenting of higher life forms and their component parts (e.g. DNA and cell-lines). The interface between the genetic revolution, patentability, and ethical considerations is the subject of this article. The author identifies, explores, and critiques four possible positions Canada may adopt in respect of patentability of biomedical material. First, Canada could do nothing. This approach would mean keeping biomedical materials outside the patent system and outside the stream of commerce. Canada would simply wait for an international consensus to develop before adopting a position of its own. Second, Canada could go it alone. It could implement a policy that balances the incentive effects of patents with the need to incorporate ethical and social values into the decision-making process regarding the use of biomedical materials. In respect of this option, the author proposes a model whereby non-profit bodies would hold the exclusive rights to research, use, and exploit biomedical materials. Third, Canada could follow the United States, Europe, and Japan by providing for almost unrestricted patenting of biomedical materials. This would be the most industry-friendly alternative. The fourth and final option is to use the medicare system to promote discussion of ethical considerations involved in the use of biomedical materials. The power of provincial health agencies may be used as a lever to ensure the discussion of ethical considerations concerning the use of biomedical materials. The author concludes that the fourth and final option is the best alternative for Canada while waiting for an international consensus to emerge.