Diagnostic Kits/Priorities for Personalized Medicine: Difference between revisions
AClearwater (talk | contribs) (added notes on Priorities for Personalized Medicine, Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)) |
AClearwater (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Priorities for Personalized Medicine, Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), September 2008 Available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf | |||
*"The US Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has recommended the “creation of an exemption | *"The US Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has recommended the “creation of an exemption |
Revision as of 18:07, 13 November 2009
Priorities for Personalized Medicine, Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), September 2008 Available at: http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/PCAST/pcast_report_v2.pdf
- "The US Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has recommended the “creation of an exemption
from liability for infringement of patent claims on genes for anyone making, using, ordering, offering for sale, or selling a test developed under the patent for patient care purposes”.146 A more convoluted and narrow exemption could not have been thought up and it begs the question: how can an independent committee made up of experts in the fields of intellectual property law and the relevant sciences conclude that a human gene is an ‘invention’ and therefore legally entitled to patent protection? Is not the patent system only about protecting ‘inventions’ and not discoveries?" (page 28)
- "The US Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics,Health, and Society (SACGHS) has recommended the “creation of an exemption
from liability for infringement of patent claims on genes for anyone making, using, ordering, offering for sale, or selling a test developed under the patent for patient care purposes”.146 A more convoluted and narrow exemption could not have been thought up and it begs the question: how can an independent committee made up of experts in the fields of intellectual property law and the relevant sciences conclude that a human gene is an ‘invention’ and therefore legally entitled to patent protection? Is not the patent system only about protecting ‘inventions’ and not discoveries? (page 28)