Marketing of unproven stem cell-based interventions: A call to action.

Commercial promotion of unsupported therapeutic uses of stem cells is a global problem that has proven resistant to regulatory efforts. Here, we suggest a coordinated approach at the national and international levels focused on engagement, harmonization, and enforcement to reduce the risks associated with direct-to-consumer marketing of unproven stem cell treatments.

Intellectual property rights, standards and data exchange in systems biology: Reflections from the IP Expert Meeting at the University of Luxembourg, 8-9 October 2015, ERASysAPP - ERA-Net for Systems Biology Applications.

Intellectual property rights (IPRs) have become a key concern for researchers and industry in basically all high-tech sectors. IPRs regularly figure prominently in scientific journals and at scientific conferences and lead to dedicated workshops to increase the awareness and "IPR savviness" of scientists. In 2015, Biotechnology Journal published a report from an expert meeting on "Synthetic Biology & Intellectual Property Rights" organized by the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation sponsored by the European Research Area Network (ERA-Net) in Synthetic Biology (ERASynBio), in which we provided a number of recommendations for a variety of stakeholders [1]. The current article offers some deeper reflections about the interface between IPRs, standards and data exchange in systems biology (SysBio) resulting from an Expert Meeting funded by another ERA-Net, ERASysAPP. The meeting brought together experts and stakeholders (e.g. scientists, company representatives, officials from public funding organizations) in SysBio from different European countries. Despite the different profiles of the stakeholders at the meeting and the variety of interests, many concerns and opinions were shared. In case particular views were expressed by a specific type of stakeholder, this will be explicitly mentioned in the text. In this article, we explore a number of particularly relevant issues that were discussed at the meeting and offer some recommendations. SysBio involves the study of biological systems at a so-called systems level. This is not a new concept in the life sciences - many former approaches in physiology, enzymology and other scientific disciplines have already taken a systemic view of selected biological subjects. Yet, SysBio has gained strong interest within the past 10 to 15 years. One predominant reason and a critical prerequisite for this success story being that the relevant scientific methodologies and research tools have become far more powerful and accurate. Remarkable technical progress allows scientists to generate, collect, display and analyse quantitative and qualitative data on biological processes and activities in much greater volumes, velocity, variety and veracity. The skilful integration of multiple heterogeneous data sets allows scientists to model and predict biological processes. SysBio's interdisciplinary nature requires data, models and other research assets to be formatted and described in standard ways to enable exchange and reuse of high quality data [2]. This allows a more effective utilisation of the enormous potential that rests in "big data" analysis. Finally, SysBio is often closely linked to or provides the foundation for Synthetic Biology (SynBio). Standardization and data exchange in SysBio may result in challenges and opportunities related to IPRs. The aim of this article is to raise awareness on these issues within the SysBio scientific community and to stimulate exploration of different strategies for dealing with IPRs in order to optimize access to and use of valuable research results.

Synthetic biology and intellectual property rights: six recommendations.

On 26th November 2013, the Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation organized an expert meeting on "Synthetic Biology & Intellectual Property Rights" in Copenhagen sponsored by the European Research Area Network in Synthetic Biology (ERASynBio). The meeting brought together ten experts from different countries with a variety of professional backgrounds to discuss emerging challenges and opportunities at the interface of synthetic biology and intellectual property rights. The aim of this article is to provide a summary of the major issues and recommendations discussed during the meeting.

Patent pools and clearinghouses in the life sciences.

The biopharmaceutical industry is slowly absorbing the idea of collaborative patent licensing models. Recently, two patent pools for developing countries have been launched: the Pool for Open Innovation against Neglected Tropical Diseases initiated by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which is referred to as the BIO Ventures for Global Health (BVGH) pool, and the Medicines Patent Pool (MPP) initiated by UNITAID. Various organizations have recommended using pools or clearinghouses beyond the humanitarian dimension where many patents are owned by many different actors. As a first attempt, MPEG LA, which administers patent pools in various technology fields, is now setting up a clearinghouse for patents related to molecular diagnostics. These examples as well as the results from an empirical study provide useful insights for the design and administration of future pools and clearinghouses in the life sciences.

A clearing house for diagnostic testing: the solution to ensure access to and use of patented genetic inventions?

In genetic diagnostics, the emergence of a so-called "patent thicket" is imminent. Such an overlapping set of patent rights may have restrictive effects on further research and development of diagnostic tests, and the provision of clinical diagnostic services. Currently, two models that may facilitate access to and use of patented genetic inventions are attracting much debate in various national and international fora: patent pools and clearing houses. In this article, we explore the concept of clearing houses. Several types of clearing houses are identified. First, we describe and discuss two types that would provide access to information on the patented inventions: the information clearing house and the technology exchange clearing house. Second, three types of clearing houses are analysed that not only offer access to information but also provide an instrument to facilitate the use of the patented inventions: the open access clearing house, the standardized licences clearing house and the royalty collection clearing house. A royalty collection clearing house for genetic diagnostic testing would be the most comprehensive as it would serve several functions: identifying patents and patent claims essential to diagnostic testing, matching licensees with licensors, developing and supplying standardized licences, collecting royalties, monitoring whether users respect licensing conditions, and providing dispute resolution services such as mediation and arbitration. In this way, it might function as an effective model for users to facilitate access to and use of the patented inventions. However, it remains to be seen whether patent holders with a strong patent portfolio will be convinced by the advantages of the royalty collection clearing house and be willing to participate.

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.

Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions.

The genetics community is increasingly concerned that patents might lead to restricted access to research and health care. We explore various measures that are designed to render patented genetic inventions accessible to further use in research, and to diagnosis and/or treatment. They include the often-recited research or experimental-use exemption, conventional one-to-one licensing and compulsory licensing, as well as patent pools and clearing-house mechanisms. The last two alternatives deserve special attention in the area of human genetics.