Comments on: SACGHS Gene Patent Recommendations Still Controversial

By: J Demers

J Demers — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:50:17 +0000

If there’s no motivation for businesses to invent, develop, get approved, and market genetic tests, what genetic tests does the committee think they’re going to “improve access” to?

By: Barbara J. Luther

Barbara J. Luther — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:39:09 +0000

And while they are at it, why not free drugs, free ventilators and supplies, free surgery, free vaccinations, diabetic measuring devices and injections, free….. Need I go on?

By: Brian Stanton

Brian Stanton — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:22:38 +0000

Interesting summary. As a member of the task force, I would encourage consideration of the third recommendation as well. Apparently, greater transparency is license agreements is also being urged. It is unclear to even me, a task force member, how deep such disclosure should go. There are clearly places where different licensing conditions are appropriate (exclusive/non-exclusive/limited/etc.). Nonetheless, the merits of permitting some business information to remain confidential should be born in mind. The language of the recommendation is simply; the lines, on the other hand, are very gray.

By: Andro Hsu

Andro Hsu — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:15:40 +0000

The February 5, 2010 approved draft is available at: http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/SACGHS/SACGHS%20Patents%20Report%20Approved%202-5-20010.pdf