National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Conclusions and Recommendations
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×

References

Abate, T. 1999. Biotech firms rushing to patent gene fragments. The San Francisco Chronicle. October 18. p. B14.

Alberts, B., and Sir A. Klug. 2000. The human genome itself must be freely available to all humankind. Nature. 404(6776):325.

Atkinson, R. C., R. N. Beachy, G. Conway, F. A. Cordova, M. A. Fox, K. A. Holbrook, D. F. Klessig, R. L. McCormick, P. M. McPherson, H. R. Rawlings III, R. Rapson, L. N. Vanderhoef, J. D. Wiley, and C. E. Young. 2003. Public sector collaboration for agricultural IP management. Science. 301(5630):174-175.

Avery, O. T., C. M. MacLeod, and M. McCarty. 1944. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of Pneumococcal types: induction of transformation by a Deoxyribonucleic Acid fraction isolated from Pneumococus Type III. J. Exp. Med. 79(2):137-157.


Berg, J. M. 2004. Presentation to Committee on Intellectual Property in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation at February 11-12 meeting.

Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, M. S. Anderson, N. Causino, and K. S. Louis. 1997. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA. 277(15):1224-1228.

Blumenthal, D., E. G. Campbell, N. Causino, and K. S. Louis 1996. Participation of life-science faculty in research relationships with industry. N. Engl. J. Med. 335(23):1734-1739.

Blumenthal, D., M. Gluck, K. S. Louis, M. A. Stoto, and D. Wise. 1986. University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: implications for the university. Science. 232(4756):1361-1366.

Bodenheimer, T. 2000. Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N. Engl. J. Med. 342(20):1539-1544.

Bratic, V. W., S. Webster, S. Matthews, and R. S. Harrell. 2005. How patent pools can avoid competition concerns. Managing Intellectual Property. 148:44-47.

Bresalier, R. S., R. S. Sandler, H. Quan, J. A. Bolognese, B. Oxenius, K. Horgan, C. Lines, R. Riddell, D. Morton, A. Lanas, M. A. Konstam, J. A. Baron: Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVe) Trial Investigators. 2005. Cardiovascular events associated with Rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 352(11):1092-1102.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×

Campbell, E. G., B. R. Clarridge, M. Gokhale, L. Birenbaum, S. Hilgartner, N. A. Holtzman, and D. Blumenthal. 2002. Data withholding in academic genetics: evidence from a national survey. JAMA. 287(15):473-480.

Carr, S., R. Aebersold, M. Baldwin, A. Burlingame, K. Clauser, and A. Nesvizhskii. 2004. The need for guidelines in publication of peptide and protein identification data: Working Group on Publication Guidelines for Peptide and Protein Identification Data. Mol. Cell. Proteomics. 3: 531-533.

Cho, M. K., S. Illangasekare, M. A. Weaver, D. G. Leonard, and J. F. Merz. 2003. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J. Mol. Diagn. 5(1):3-8.

Clark, J., J. Piccolo, B. Stanton, and K. Tyson. 2000. Patent Pools: A Solution to the Problem of Access in Biotechnology Patents. Available at www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/patentpool.pdf. Accessed June 21, 2005.

Collins, F. S. 1995. Positional cloning moves from perditional to traditional. Nat. Genet. 9(4): 347-350.

Collins, F. 2004. Intellectual property and genomics: a rocky relationship: remarks to Committee on Intellectual Property in Genomic and Protein Research and Innovation at February 11-12 meeting.

Crick, F. 1967. Of Molecules and Men. Seattle: University of Washington Press.


Dickson, D. 1993. UK clinical geneticists ask for ban on the patenting of human genes. Nature. 366(6454):391.

Dueker, K. S. 1997. Biobusiness on campus: commercialization of university-developed biomedical technologies. Food Drug Law J. 52(4):453-509.

Dulbecco, R. 1986. Mind from Matter? An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology. Palo Alto: Blackwell Scientific Publications.


Easton, D. F., D. T. Bishop, D. Ford, and G. P. Crockford. 1993. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 52(4):678-701.

Eisenberg, R. S. 1990. Patenting the human genome. Emory Law J. 39(3):721-745.

Eisenberg, R. 1996. Intellectual property at the public-private divide: the case of large-scale cDNA sequencing. Univ. Chi. Law. School Roundtable. 3:557-573.

Eisenberg, R. S. 1997. Patenting research tools and the law. In: Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular Biology: Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Eisenberg, R. S. 2001. Bargaining over the transfer of proprietary research tools. In: Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property, pp. 223-249, edited by Dreyfuss, R., D. L. Zimmerman, and H. First. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Federal Trade Commission. 2003. To promote innovation: The proper balance of competition and patent law and policy. Washington, D.C.: Federal Trade Commission.

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. Biotechnology Innovation Report 2004: Benchmarks. June 2004.

Firlik, A. D., and D. W. Lowry. 2000. Is academic medicine for sale? N. Engl. J. Med. 343(7):509-510.


Gluck, M., D. Blumenthal, and M. Stoto. 1987. University-industry research relationships in the life sciences: Implications for students and post-doctoral fellows. Research Policy. 16:327-336.

Graveley, B. R. 2005. Mutually exclusive splicing of the insect Dscam pre-mRNA directed by competing intronic RNA secondary structures. Cell. 123(1):65-73.

Gusella, J. F., N. S. Wexler, P. M. Conneally, S. L. Naylor, M. A. Anderson, R. E. Tanzi, P. C. Watkins, K. Ottina, M. R. Wallace, A.Y. Sakaguchi, A. B. Young, I. Shoulson, E. Bonilla, and J. B. Martin. 1983. A polymorphic DNA marker genetically linked to Huntington’s disease. Nature. 306(5940): 234-238.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×

Hall J. M., M. K. Lee, B. Newman, J. E. Morrow, L. A. Anderson, B. Huey, and M. C. King. 1990. Linkage of early-onset familial breast cancer to chromosome 17q21. Science. 250 (4988):1684-1689.

Heller, M. A., and R S. Eisenberg. 1998. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science. 280(5364):698-701.

Henry, M. R., M. K. Cho, M. A. Weaver, and J. F. Merz. 2002. DNA patenting and licensing. Science. 297(5585):1279.

Hollen, T. 2000. NIH researchers receive cut-price BRCA test. Nat. Med. 6(6):610.

Howlett, M., and A. F. Christie. 2004. An analysis of the approach of the European, Japanese, and United States patent offices to patenting partial DNA sequences (ESTs). University of Melbourne Faculty of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper No. 82. Available at ssrn.com/abstract=573184.

Hughes, S. S. 2001. Making dollars out of DNA. The first major patent in biotechnology and the commercialization of molecular biology, 1974-1980. Isis. 92(3):541-75.


Jensen, K., and F. Murray. 2005. IP Landscape of the Human Genome. Science. 310:239-240.

Johnson, R. P., and A. Kaur. 2005. HIV: viral blitzkrieg. Nature. 434(7037):1080-1081.


Kastan, M. B., and J. Bartek. 2004. Cell-cycle checkpoints and cancer. Nature. 432(7015):316-323.

Kaufman, R. J. 1989. Genetic engineering of factor VIII. Nature. 342(6246):207-208.

Kaul R., G. P. Gao, K. Balamurugan, and R. Matalon. 1993. Cloning of the human aspartoacylase cDNA and a common missense mutation in Canavan disease. Nat. Genet. 5(2):118-123.

Kendrew, J. C., G. Bodo, H. M. Dintzis, R. G. Parrish, H. Wyckoff, and D. C. Phillips. 1958. A three-dimensional model of the myoglobin molecule obtained by x-ray analysis. Nature. 181(4610):662-666.

Kenney, M. 1986. Biotechnology: The University-Industry Complex. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Kilpatrick, M. M., D. W. Lowry, A. D. Firlik, H. Yonas, D. W. Marion. 2000. Hyperthermia in the neurosurgical intensive care unit. Neurosurgery. 47(4):850-856.

Kodish, E., T. Murray, and P. Whitehouse. 1996. Conflict of interest in university-industry research relationships: realities, politics, and values. Acad. Med. 71(12):1287-1290.

Kristiansen, O. P., Z. M. Larsen, and F. Pociot. 2000. CTLA-4 in autoimmune diseases–a general susceptibility gene to autoimmunity? Genes Immun. 1(3):170-84.


Lander, E. S., L. M. Linton, B. Birren, C. Nusbaum, M. C. Zody, et al. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature. 409(6822):860-921.

Lawrence, S. 2004. U.S. biopatents decline. Nat. Biotechnol. 22(7):797.


MacDonald, M. E., C. M. Ambrose, M. P. Duyao, R. H. Myers, C. Lin, et al. 1993. A novel gene containing a trinucleotide repeat that is expanded and unstable on Huntington’s disease chromosomes. The Huntington’s Disease Collaborative Research Group. Cell. 72(6):971-983.

Merz, J. F. 1999. Disease gene patents: Overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin. Chem. 45(3):324-330.

Merz, J. F., and M. K. Cho. 1998. Disease genes are not patentable: a rebuttal to McGee. Camb. Q. Healthc. Ethics. 7:425-428.

Merz, J. F., D. G. Leonard, A. G. Kriss, and M. K. Cho. 2002. Industry opposes genomic legislation. Nat. Biotechnol. 20(7):657.

Michelsohn, A. M. 2004. Biotechnology Innovation Report 2004: Benchmarks. Washington, D.C.: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.

Milstein, C. 1993. Patents on scientific discoveries are unfair and potentially dangerous. The Scientist. 7(21):11.

Mowery, David, Frichard Nelson, Bhaven Sampat, and Arvids Ziedonis. 2004. Ivory Tower and Industrial Innovation: University-Industry Technology Transfer Before and After the Bayh-Dole Act. Stanford University Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×

Murray, F., and S. Stern. 2004. Do Formal Intellectual Property Rights Hinder the Free Flow of Scientific Knowledge? An Empirical Test of the Anti-Commons Hypothesis. Unpublished manuscript.


National Research Council. Committee on Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. 1988. Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 1997. Intellectual Property Rights and Research Tools in Molecular biology. Summary of a Workshop Held at the National Academy of Sciences, February 15-16, 1996. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences. 2003. Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials: Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. Committee on Intellectual Property Rights in the Knowledge-Based Economy. 2004. A Patent System for the 21st Century. Merrill, S. A., R. C. Levin, and M. B. Myers, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

National Science Foundation. National Science Board. 2004. Science and Engineering Indicators. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.

National Institutes of Health. 1998. Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools. Available at www.nih.gov./news/researchtools/index.htm. Accessed June 22, 2005.


Oosterwegel, M. A., R. J. Greenwald, D. A. Mandelbrot, R. B. Lorsbach, and A. H. Sharpe. 1999. CTLA-4 and T cell activation. Curr. Opin. Immunol. 11(3):294-300.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. Genetic Inventions, Intellectual Property Rights and Licensing Practices, p. 48. Available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/42/21/2491084.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2005.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2005. Intellectual Property and Competition Policy in the Biotechnology Industry. Available at www.oecd.org/dataoecd/36/4/35040373.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2005.


Patent and Trademark Act Amendments of 1980 (Bayh-Dole Act), Pub. L. No. 96-517, 94 Stat. 3015 (codified in scattered sections of 35 U.S.C.).

Petricoin, E. F., and L. A. Liotaa. 2002. Proteomic analysis at the bedside: Early detection of cancer. Trends Biotechnol. 20(12 Suppl):S30-4.

Pressman, L., R. Burgess, R. M. Cook-Deegan, S. J. McCormack, I. Nami-Wolk, M. Soucy, and L. Walters. 2005. Patenting and licensing practices for DNA-based patents at U.S. academic institutions. Nat. Biotechnol. In press.

Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts on Obtaining and Disseminating Biomedical Research Resources: Final Notice, 64 Fed. Reg. 72,090 (proposed Dec. 23, 1999).


Rosenshine, I., T. Umanski, O. Ilan, A. Peleg-Lavi, Y. Fang, I. Nisan, and D. Friedberg 1999. Regulation of Virulence Genes and Host Specificity by EPEC. Presented at UNESCO Workshop on Science for Peace and Regional Scientific Cooperation in Molecular Biology, Microbiology, and Biotechnology. Jerusalem, Israel.


Sampat, B. Patents on Academic Genomic Discoveries: Effects on Biomedical Research. Working Paper, Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan. Forthcoming.

Sanger, F., S. Nicklen, and A. R. Coulson. 1977. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 74(12):5463-5647.

Service, R. F. 2001. Proteomics: Gene and protein patents get ready to go head to head. Science. 294(5549):2082-2083.

Sheridan, C. 2004. Curie’s victory over BRCA1. Nat. Biotechnol. 22(7):797.

Shimbo, I., R. Nakajima, S. Yokohama, and K. Sumikura. 2004. Patent protection for protein structure analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 22(1):109-112.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×

Staudt, L. M., and S. Dave. 2005. The biology of human lymphoid malignancies revealed by gene expression profiling. Adv. Immunol. 87:163-208.


Thackray, A., ed. 1998. Private Science: Biotechnology and the Rise of the Molecular Sciences. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Thursby, M. C., J. Thursby, and E. Dechenaux. 2005. Shirking Sharing Risk, and Shelving: The role of University License Contracts. (Working Paper No. 11128). National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.


U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. 1988. Mapping Our Genes. Genome Projects: How Big? How Fast? OTA-BA-273. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.


Venter, J. C., M. D. Adams, E. W. Myers, P. W. Li, R. J. Mural, et al. 2001. The sequence of the human genome. Science. 291(5507):1304-1351.

Vermij, P. 2005. BRAC1 patent revisited. Nat. Biotechnol. 23(3):277.

Vinarov, S. D. 2003. Patent protection for structural genomics-related inventions. J. Struct. Funct. Genomics. 4(2-3):191-209.


Walsh, J. P., A. Arora, and W. M. Cohen. 2003. Research tool patent and licensing and biomedical innovation. In: Patents in the Knowledge-Based Economy, pp. 285-340. W. Cohen and S. Merrill, eds. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.

Walsh, J. P., C. Cho, and W. M. Cohen. 2005. Patents, Material Transfers, and Access to Research Inputs in Biomedical Research at http://www.uic.edu/~jwalsh/NASreport.html.

Watson, J. D., and F. H. Crick. 1953. Molecular structure of nucleic acids; a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature. 171(4356):737-738.

Watson F. L., R. Puttmann-Holgado, F. Thomas, D. L. Lamar, M. Hughes, M. Kondo, V. I. Rebel, and D. Schmucker. 2005. Extensive diversity of Ig-superfamily proteins in the immune system of insects. Science. 309(5742):1874-1878.

Wright, B., and P. G. Pardey. 2005. Intellectual property protection: A challenge to agricultural biotechnology innovation developing countries. Unpublished paper.


Yamamoto, Y., and R. B. Gaynor. 2001. Role of the NF-kappaB pathway in the pathogenesis of human disease states. Curr. Mol. Med. 1(3):287-296.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×
Page 152
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×
Page 153
Suggested Citation:"References." National Research Council. 2006. Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11487.
×
Page 154
Next: Appendix A Biographical Information of Committee and Staff »
Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $43.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The patenting and licensing of human genetic material and proteins represents an extension of intellectual property (IP) rights to naturally occurring biological material and scientific information, much of it well upstream of drugs and other disease therapies. This report concludes that IP restrictions rarely impose significant burdens on biomedical research, but there are reasons to be apprehensive about their future impact on scientific advances in this area. The report recommends 13 actions that policy-makers, courts, universities, and health and patent officials should take to prevent the increasingly complex web of IP protections from getting in the way of potential breakthroughs in genomic and proteomic research. It endorses the National Institutes of Health guidelines for technology licensing, data sharing, and research material exchanges and says that oversight of compliance should be strengthened. It recommends enactment of a statutory exception from infringement liability for research on a patented invention and raising the bar somewhat to qualify for a patent on upstream research discoveries in biotechnology. With respect to genetic diagnostic tests to detect patient mutations associated with certain diseases, the report urges patent holders to allow others to perform the tests for purposes of verifying the results.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!