Patenting genes and gene sequences: Analysis of public health implications and the law

At issue is whether or not isolated DNA is patent eligible under the U.S. Patent Law and the implications of that determination on public health. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued patents on DNA since the 1980s, and scientists and researchers have proceeded under that milieu since that time. Today, genetic research and testing related to the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 is conducted within the framework of seven patents that were issued to Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation between 1997 and 2000. In 2009, suit was filed on behalf of multiple researchers, professional associations and others to invalidate fifteen of the claims underlying those patents. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears patent cases, has invalidated claims for analyzing and comparing isolated DNA but has upheld claims to isolated DNA. The specific issue of whether isolated DNA is patent eligible is now before the Supreme Court, which is expected to decide the case by year's end. In this work, a systematic review was performed to determine the effects of DNA patents on various stakeholders and, ultimately, on public health; and to provide a legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and the likely outcome of the Supreme Court's decision. ^ A literature review was conducted to: first, identify principle stakeholders with an interest in patent eligibility of the isolated DNA sequences BRCA1 and BRCA2; and second, determine the effect of the case on those stakeholders. Published reports that addressed gene patents, the Myriad litigation, and implications of gene patents on stakeholders were included. Next, an in-depth legal analysis of the patent eligibility of isolated DNA and methods for analyzing it was performed pursuant to accepted methods of legal research and analysis based on legal briefs, federal law and jurisprudence, scholarly works and standard practice legal analysis. ^ Biotechnology, biomedical and clinical research, access to health care, and personalized medicine were identified as the principle stakeholders and interests herein. Many experts believe that the patent eligibility of isolated DNA will not greatly affect the biotechnology industry insofar as genetic testing is concerned; unlike for therapeutics, genetic testing does not require tremendous resources or lead time. The actual impact on biomedical researchers is uncertain, with greater impact expected for researchers whose work is intended for commercial purposes (versus basic science). The impact on access to health care has been surprisingly difficult to assess; while invalidating gene patents might be expected to decrease the cost of genetic testing and improve access to more laboratories and physicians' offices that provide the test, a 2010 study on the actual impact was inconclusive. As for personalized medicine, many experts believe that the availability of personalized medicine is ultimately a public policy issue for Congress, not the courts. ^ Based on the legal analysis performed in this work, this writer believes the Supreme Court is likely to invalidate patents on isolated DNA whose sequences are found in nature, because these gene sequences are a basic tool of scientific and technologic work and patents on isolated DNA would unduly inhibit their future use. Patents on complementary DNA (cDNA) are expected to stand, however, based on the human intervention required to craft cDNA and the product's distinction from the DNA found in nature. ^ In the end, the solution as to how to address gene patents may lie not in jurisprudence but in a fundamental change in business practices to provide expanded licenses to better address the interests of the several stakeholders. ^

Barriers to cross-border research projects: A prelude to improving professional collaborations between the United States and Mexico

Study objective. This was a secondary data analysis of a study designed and executed in two phases in order to investigate several questions: Why aren't more investigators conducting successful cross-border research on human health issues? What are the barriers to conducting this research? What interventions might facilitate cross-border research? ^ Methods. Key informant interviews and focus groups were used in Phase One, and structured questionnaires in Phase Two. A multi-question survey was created based on the findings of focus groups and distributed to a wider circle of researchers and academics for completion. The data was entered and analyzed using SPSS software. ^ Setting. El Paso, TX located on the U.S-Mexico Border. ^ Participants. Individuals from local academic institutions and the State Department of Health. ^ Results. From the transcribed data of the focus groups, eight major themes emerged: Political Barriers, Language/Cultural Barriers, Differing Goals, Geographic Issues, Legal Barriers, Technology/Material Issues, Financial Barriers, and Trust Issues. Using these themes, the questionnaire was created. ^ The response rate for the questionnaires was 47%. The largest obstacles revealed by this study were identifying a funding source for the project (47% agreeing or strongly agreeing), difficulties paying a foreign counterpart (33% agreeing or strongly agreeing) and administrative changes in Mexico (31% agreeing or strongly agreeing). ^ Conclusions. Many U.S. investigators interested in cross-border research have been discouraged in their efforts by varying barriers. The majority of respondents in the survey felt financial issues and changes in Mexican governments were the most significant obstacles. While some of these barriers can be overcome simply by collaboration among motivated groups, other barriers may be more difficult to remove. Although more evaluation of this research question is warranted, the information obtained through this study is sufficient to support creation of a Cross-Border Research Resource Manual to be used by individuals interested in conducting research with Mexico. ^

Industrial benzene emissions in Houston: Legal barriers to reducing a public health threat

Decades of research show that environmental exposure to the chemical benzene is associated with severe carcinogenic, hematoxic and genotoxic effects on the human body. As such, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated the chemical as a Hazardous Air Pollutant and prescribed benzene air concentration guidelines that provide cities with an ideal ambient level to protect human health. However, in Houston, Texas, a city home to the top industrial benzene emitters in the US who undoubtedly contribute greatly to the potentially unsafe levels of ambient benzene, regulations beyond the EPA’s unenforceable guidelines are critical to protecting public health. Despite this, the EPA has failed to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for benzene. States are thus left to regulate air benzene levels on their own; in the case of Texas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and state legislature have failed to proactively develop legally enforceable policies to reduce major source benzene emissions. This inaction continues to exacerbate a public health problem, which may only be solved through a legal framework that restricts preventable benzene emissions to protect human health and holds industrial companies accountable for violations of such regulations and standards. This analysis explores legal barriers that the City of Houston and other relevant agencies currently face in their attempt to demand and bring about such change. ^

Legal regulation of the food industry as a public health measure

Background. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is an agency of the federal government that is responsible for monitoring and maintaining public health through the regulation of many industries, including food safety. Through the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990, the FDA was granted authority over the implementation and regulation of nutrition labeling on packaged foods. Many nutrients are printed on nutrition labels as well as their percent Daily Values. Research has been undertaken to examine the evidentiary basis the FDA relied upon in making its determinations regarding which nutrients to include on nutrition labels as well as their Daily Values. ^ Methods. Relevant legal policies, scientific studies, and other published literature (either in print or electronic form) were used to collect data. ^ Results. Results demonstrated that the FDA did not employ one single method in its determination of which nutrients to select for inclusion on food labels. The agency relied upon current public heath studies of that time as well as recommendations from the U.S. Surgeon General.^