Ownership Rights:: Patents for Derivatives of the Human Body
•Télécharger en tant que PPS, PDF•
1 j'aime•736 vues
Who owns your genes... It's complicated.
![[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (12)
Similaire à Ownership Rights:: Patents for Derivatives of the Human Body
Similaire à Ownership Rights:: Patents for Derivatives of the Human Body (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Ownership Rights:: Patents for Derivatives of the Human Body
- 1. Issues for Today and Tomorrow Ownership Rights: Patents for Derivatives of the Human Body Larnita Pette May 19, 2009 (Updated December 2011)
Notes de l'éditeur
- Australia Whose DNA .pdf, Tonga & Iceland, Biotech, Ownership and Consent Indigenous peoples and culturally appropriate informed consent and ownership of DNA. Genomic studies are also being undertaken with populations which do not identify themselves as indigenous peoples, such as the UK, Norfolk Island, Mormons and in Iceland. Such populations are sometimes targeted because they have well documented genealogical histories, making them valuable for tracing inherited diseases. In Iceland availability of genealogies date back centuries. Informed consent claimed through an act of parliament. decode a commercial firm. October 1999, Autogen Ltd announced an agreement in principle to form a strategic alliance with Merck Lipha, a subsidiary of Merck Kga A of Darmstadt, Germany the manufacturer of metformin the world’s top selling drug for the treatment of diabetes. Metformin holds 50% of the market for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes in Australia.- introduced to the US market in 1996, where it became the #1 best seller. Object of Autogen/Merck Human Genetics Project is discovery of human genes involved in weight imbalance, Type 2 Diabetes and insulin resistance. Details of deal to share compensation with the Tongan people and the catch which caused Autogen to abandon research on TANIS gene
- Who Owns Your Body The California Supreme Court agreed that Moore did have a claim for breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent because Dr. Golde had failed to disclose the extent of his research and his economic interest in Moore’s cells. The court stated in its decision, that an adult of sound mind has the right to exercise control over his own body and, within that right, should have the power of deciding whether or not to submit to lawful medical treatment. For that power to be effective, the court stated, a patient’s consent must be informed consent. The Florida district court did find that Matalon and his group had unjustly benefited from the licensing fees negotiated under the commercial patent. However, the Florida court also ruled that the case involved no patient-physician relationship—because Dr. Matalon was not a treating physician to the Canavan patients or their families—and thus found no breach of duty of informed consent. The case of Washington University v. Catalona highlights the reality, that researchers themselves have limited rights over their own work, and provides a focal point by which to explore the question: How does informed consent grant a researcher the right to explore one’s biological materials in the name of science, and does it strip consenting patients of all interests in something that is uniquely their own? The district court found that WU had alone assumed the burden of all legal, regulatory, and compliance risks with respect to all research done in connection with the biorepository that Dr. Catalona had helped to create. The court found thus that WU had, at all times, exercised undisputed and exclusive possession over the samples in question, demonstrating prima facie evidence of ownership. The court ruled that the samples were donated to WU as gifts and donors had no ownership interest in those samples. Dr. Catalona appealed the decision.