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.

[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.

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.

A legal duty to disclose individual research findings to research subjects?

Research that utilizes human subjects is a large and growing enterprise. Tens of millions of individuals have already participated as subjects in one or more research protocols, and millions more participate each year. Government and industry combined spend billions annually to support as many as 20,000 research studies, many of which are individually large and complex enterprises in their own right.These numbers are, if anything, likely to increase even further. Besides the growth in research, two other trends are apparent. First, research-related litigation is on the rise and appears likely to become even more widespread. Sparked at least in part by recent widely publicized instances of harm befalling research subjects, plaintiffs' attorneys are suing both more often and more creatively. Related to this is the second trend: public trust in research is declining and, as a result, at least some types of research are struggling to find adequate numbers of human subjects.As a result of these trends, exposure to potential liability and public perception are both increasingly important. Concomitant with all of this research is the discovery and generation of tremendous quantities of data specific to individual subjects, including--but not limited to--genetic information. Much of this data is irrelevant to subjects' interests because it lacks predictive value, has uncertain meaning, or is otherwise uninformative. Some, however, is different--some of the personal data learned during the course of research with human subjects bears directly on individuals' health. Despite the fact that much individual data has already been generated and that both the quantity and the quality of data generated seem likely to increase, there is a lack of clear guidance for researchers regarding whether and when such information should be divulged to the subjects on whom it bears.In this environment, the potential exists for litigation alleging that a researcher was negligent for failure to disclose to a subject an individual research finding of medical significance. Such litigation would raise a heretofore-unanswered question: should a researcher have a legal duty to disclose medically significant individual research findings to a subject?

Patent pools and diagnostic testing.

There is increasing concern that overlapping patents in the field of genetics will create a costly and legally complex situation known as a patent thicket, which, along with the associated issues of accumulating royalty payments, can act as a disincentive for innovation. One potential means of preventing this is for the patent holders to enter into a so-called patent pool, such as those established in the electronics and telecommunications industries. Precedents for these also exist in the field of genetics, notably with the patents pertaining to the SARS genome. In this review, we initially address the patent pool concept in general and its application in genetics. Following this, we will explore patent pools in the diagnostic field in more detail, and examine some existing and novel examples of patent pools in genetics.