Synthetic Biology and the United Nations.

Synthetic biology is a rapidly emerging interdisciplinary field of science and engineering that aims to redesign living systems through reprogramming genetic information. The field has catalysed global debate among policymakers and publics. Here we describe how synthetic biology relates to these international deliberations, particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

LeRoy Walters's Legacy of Bioethics in Genetics and Biotechnology Policy.

LeRoy Walters was at the center of public debate about emerging biological technologies, even as "biotechnology" began to take root. He chaired advisory panels on human gene therapy, the human genome project, and patenting DNA for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He chaired the subcommittee on Human Gene Therapy for NIH's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. He was also a regular advisor to Congress, the executive branch, and academics concerned about policy governing emerging biotechnologies. In large part due to Prof. Walters, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics was one of the primary sources of talent in bioethics, including staff who populated policy and science agencies dealing with reproductive and genetic technologies, such as NIH and OTA. His legacy lies not only in his writings, but in those people, documents, and discussions that guided biotechnology policy in the United States for three decades.

International Divergence in Gene Patenting.

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.

Genetics and right: a methodology.

The theme of the free availability of genetic information is, by its nature, the heart of attention in most areas of investigation. From biology to medicine, from philosophy to law, from theology to biotechnology there isn't an area of science that cannot be said to be interested in the subject, nor has not, in recent years, tried to deepen it.

[Overview of patents on targeted genome editing technologies and their implications for innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities].

Zinc finger nuclease, transcription activator-like effector nuclease, and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas9 nuclease are important targeted genome editing technologies. They have great significance in scientific research and applications on aspects of functional genomics research, species improvement, disease prevention and gene therapy. There are past or ongoing disputes over ownership of the intellectual property behind every technology. In this review, we summarize the patents on these three targeted genome editing technologies in order to provide some reference for developing genome editing technologies with self-owned intellectual property rights and some implications for current innovation and entrepreneurship education in universities.

The History of Patenting Genetic Material.

The US Supreme Court's recent decision in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. declared, for the first time, that isolated human genes cannot be patented. Many have wondered how genes were ever the subjects of patents. The answer lies in a nuanced understanding of both legal and scientific history. Since the early twentieth century, "products of nature" were not eligible to be patented unless they were "isolated and purified" from their surrounding environment. As molecular biology advanced, and the capability to isolate genes both physically and by sequence came to fruition, researchers (and patent offices) began to apply patent-law logic to genes themselves. These patents, along with other biological patents, generated substantial social and political criticism. Myriad Genetics, a company with patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2, two genes critical to assessing early-onset breast and ovarian cancer risk, and with a particularly controversial business approach, became the antagonist in an ultimately successful campaign to overturn gene patents in court. Despite Myriad's defeat, some questions concerning the rights to monopolize genetic information remain. The history leading to that defeat may be relevant to these future issues.

Are the gene-patent storm clouds dissipating? A global snapshot.

In genetic diagnostics testing, what are the boundaries of the global patent problem, and is there a real risk that patents and licensing practices could impede access to tests?

Baseball bats and chocolate chip cookies: the judicial treatment of DNA in the myriad genetics litigation.

In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a controversial ruling that naturally occurring DNA segments are "products of nature" and therefore not patentable subject matter. At this intersection between science and law, in litigation of crucial importance to patients, science, and multibillion-dollar biotech enterprises, the appellate judges sidestepped genetics and engaged in a war of metaphors from diamonds to chocolate chip cookies. This case is not an outlier. Apprehensive judges and juries in both Canada and the United States find many convenient excuses to avoid coming to grips with the underlying science in patent cases. But this is simply not acceptable. Legal rulings must be, and must seem to be, well grounded, as a matter of both law and science. The legitimacy of court decisions in the eyes of the stakeholders and the broader public depends on it.

Decoding gene patents in Australia.

Patents directed to naturally occurring genetic material, such as DNA, RNA, chromosomes, and genes, in an isolated or purified form have been granted in Australia for many years. This review provides scientists with a summary of the gene patent debate from an Australian perspective and specifically reviews how the various levels of the legal system as they apply to patents-the Australian Patent Office, Australian courts, and Australian government-have dealt with the issue of whether genetic material is proper subject matter for a patent.

Modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Enforcement, and Breach Notification rules under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act; other modifications to the HIPAA rules.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or ``the Department'') is issuing this final rule to: Modify the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Privacy, Security, and Enforcement Rules to implement statutory amendments under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (``the HITECH Act'' or ``the Act'') to strengthen the privacy and security protection for individuals' health information; modify the rule for Breach Notification for Unsecured Protected Health Information (Breach Notification Rule) under the HITECH Act to address public comment received on the interim final rule; modify the HIPAA Privacy Rule to strengthen the privacy protections for genetic information by implementing section 105 of Title I of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA); and make certain other modifications to the HIPAA Privacy, Security, Breach Notification, and Enforcement Rules (the HIPAA Rules) to improve their workability and effectiveness and to increase flexibility for and decrease burden on the regulated entities.

The making of an advocate. Interview with Alan Fernandez.

We spoke with Alan, Associate Director at the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI), the organizer of the annual World Stem Cell Summit, to find out what led him to devote his career to stem cell advocacy. Alan has focused his career on advancing stem cell sciences and the field of regenerative medicine since 2006. While working with Burrill & Company, he began working with the Genetics Policy Institute (GPI) on the 2007 Stem Cell Summit with the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. He then joined the GPI full-time in 2008. Alan's skills in business development and marketing were cultivated at companies like Dow Jones, Ziff Davis and Burrill & Company. Earlier in his career, Alan worked in technology and grassroots business communications, working for start-ups and mid-sized companies.