Jennifer K. Wagner, J.D., Ph.D., is a solo-practicing attorney in State College, PA and a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for the Integration of Genetic Healthcare Technologies.
Thanks to technological innovation and a corresponding decline in cost, an increasing number of individuals are finding themselves with the task – or at least the opportunity – of accessing and interpreting their own genetic information. Over the past year, several state legislatures have taken notice.
Following on the heels of legislation passed or proposed in California, Vermont and Massachusetts, the Alabama House of Representatives is considering a bill by Representative Henry (pre-filed on January 23, 2012 and scheduled for first read on February 7, 2012) titled the “Genetic Information Privacy Act” (2012 AL H.B. 78). While the bill is relatively brief, its effects as written may reach far beyond those intended.
A New Bar for Informed Consent. First, the bill in its current form would require signature on separate informed consent documents to obtain, retain, or disclose genetic information. As drafted the bill would provide an exception for the insurance industry, permitting a single, integrated informed consent document if the genetic information is being obtained, retained, or disclosed “for the purpose of obtaining insurance” (Page 4, Line 25).
We reported yesterday on a proposed Patent Act amendment that, if successful, would create a safe harbor for second opinion genetic diagnostic testing. While conceptually simple, the proposed amendment would have left genetic testing developers and providers, patent holders and courts with considerable uncertainty about the safe harbor’s appropriate interpretation and application.
Initially offered by Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) in April, the amendment surfaced again this past week in the Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 1249 (pdf), the House’s attempt at patent reform legislation.
As news of the proposed amendment spread, it generated a flurry of activity on Capitol Hill. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the group largely responsible for coordinating the plaintiffs in the Myriad gene patent litigation, spearheaded the charge. An ACLU-led coalition wrote in opposition to the proposed amendment (pdf), arguing that the proposed second opinion safe harbor “would fail to block all patent holder objections to [second opinion] testing, fails to address the many other limitations on scientific research arising out of the issuance of [gene patents], and risks allowing gene patent holders to argue that Congress implicitly endorses the validity of such patents.” The group was joined in its efforts by the American Medical Association, the Association for Molecular Pathology (the first named plaintiff in Myriad) and others, who collectively lobbied Rep. Wasserman Schultz and her colleagues to avoid creating “unintended harms to patients, medical professionals and genetic researchers.”
When we last checked in on the state of patent reform back in March, the Senate had just passed the America Invents Act (S.23) or, as it is more commonly known, the Patent Reform Act of 2011 (pdf) by an overwhelming 95-5 vote.
Following its passage in the Senate, the legislation promptly stalled in the House of Representatives and, several months and numerous committee hearings later, that is where it remains. Fierce lobbying and political maneuvering have thrown multiple key provisions of the reform legislation into doubt. Leading areas of debate include the constitutionality of a proposed change from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” patent system and a provision that would allow the patent office to retain user fees to fund its own operations.
While it remains unclear whether patent reform will actually occur, the latest round of legislative wrangling has introduced one proposal of particular interest to Genomics Law Report readers. Among 86 pages of proposed amendments (pdf) to H.R.1249 (the House version of the patent reform legislation) offered earlier this week is a provision that, if adopted, would provide an infringement safe harbor for second opinion genetic diagnostic testing.
Permitting Second Opinions in Certain Genetic Diagnostic Testing. Introduced as part of the Manager’s Amendment (pdf) submitted by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the proposal is conceptually simple. It would create a new Section 287(d) under the Patent Act to establish a safe harbor for second opinion genetic diagnostic testing providers, much like the safe harbor that already exists at Section 287(c) for medical practitioners’ performance of medical activities.
We have recently summarized efforts by two state legislatures to design regulatory schemes addressing issues raised by the proliferation of genetic information about individuals. New York’s effort addresses questions of insurance coverage for genetic testing. Massachusetts’ goes much further, calling itself a “Genetic Bill of Rights,”a title that accurately reflects its ambitions. In reviewing both of these proposals we have made the point that state-level legislation is no substitute for a coordinated and long-overdue federal-level approach.
But who will lead that coordinated federal effort? As we wrote recently, since the 2008 publication of a SACGHS report identifying major gaps in the regulation of genetic testing, that committee has been disbanded and no clear successor has emerged to champion these issues at the federal level. Last week, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), which was originally created by the NIH to support the Human Genome Project, and is today tasked with advancing the understanding and application of human genomics, updated its long-term strategic plan for the first time since 2003 (pdf). Although a “critical part” of the NHGRI’s mission is the “study of the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genome research,” the Institute’s new roadmap barely touches upon ELSI issues, and dispenses with “legal and public policy issues” in a single sentence by noting the need for “collaborations.”
[Editor’s Note: This post originally appeared as a guest column at Xconomy.]
Last week, New York State assemblyman J. Gary Pretlow introduced the descriptively named “act to amend the insurance law, in relation to requiring coverage for genetic testing in accident and health insurance polices.”
While not accompanied by a press release, or widely covered by media outlets, the bill merits close attention. While the substance of the bill is striking, its greater import lies in what it reveals about the United States’ current framework for personalized medicine regulation and in what the bill portends for the future of personalized medicine innovation and investment in this country.
Last January we kicked off the new year by posing “Five Questions for Personal Genomics in 2010.” Here were the five questions we asked:
1. Will the $1,000 genome live up to the hype?
2. Will personal genomics stay DTC?
3. How will the ongoing gene patent debate affect the progress of personalized medicine?
4. When and where will the next regulatory shoe fall?
5. Who will control the data?
A year later the question that comes first to mind is, has anything really changed?
The short answer is no, not fundamentally, although that is not meant to imply that nothing of note happened in 2010. Far from it, as significant legal, regulatory, policy and technological developments continued to reshape the personal genomics landscape.
With that in mind, we welcome 2011 with a look back at the year that was, and a look ahead at what to expect from 2011 and beyond.
Gene patents have been controversial since they were first granted in the US over two decades ago. The controversy is now reaching a fevered pitch after a surprising US District Court decision which held that human genes are not legitimately patentable and an amicus brief by the Department of Justice largely in support of this contention. How this case will be decided by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court (should it accept the inevitable appeal) is anyone’s guess.
But in spite of what might be suggested by the rhetoric often accompanying this debate, the questions at hand are amenable to logical analysis and the application of evidence. Such an analysis argues strongly that if patents on naturally occurring genes are ultimately ruled out of bounds, the net effect on commerce would be positive.
Over the weekend, Steven L. Salzberg and Mihaela Pertea published a short but significant article in the journal Genome Biology. In “Do-it-yourself genetic testing,” Salzberg and Pertea describe the creation of “a computational screen that tests an individual’s genome for mutations in the BRCA genes, despite the fact that both are currently protected by patents.”
The software-based test can be downloaded from the website of the University of Maryland’s Center for Bioinformatics & Computational Biology, where Salzberg is the director and Pertea is on the faculty. The test purports to test genomic sequence data against a set of known mutations in the BRCA genes. In addition to representing a conceptual alternative for those seeking to evaluate their risk of hereditary breast cancer, the so-called “Salzberg Screen” is also a direct challenge to Myriad Genetics, the FDA and the existing legal, regulatory and policy regimes that continue to struggle to keep pace with the science and technology of genomics and personalized medicine.
Below, we examine how the Salzberg Screen fits—or does not—within the current legal and regulatory landscape, as well as what it signals for the future of do-it-yourself genomics, whole-genome sequencing and the law.
The clock has run out the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, & Society (SACGHS). As reported by Turna Ray of Pharmacogenomics Reporter, the committee, which reports to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, will have its charter extended only long enough to conduct one final meeting next month.
According to Ray, SACGHS members were notified this week that Secretary Sebelius and NIH Director Francis Collins had determined that “the major topics related to genetic and genomic technologies had been successfully addressed by the committee through its comprehensive reports and recommendations over the years” and, for that reason, the decision was made “to sunset the committee’s charter.”
Yesterday the Supreme Court issued its decision in the highly anticipated patent case, Bilski v. Kappos. Contrary to some expectations, the Court decided Bilski on narrow grounds, leaving the state of biotechnology patents largely untouched. Here is part of what we wrote yesterday:
Although the Court’s narrow ruling left a direct treatment of the difficult issues surrounding biotechnology patents for another day, those issues continue to loom large. As of this writing, a petition for certiorari in the Prometheus case is currently pending before the Supreme Court. In Prometheus, the Federal Circuit court applied the MoT test in a biotechnology context, upholding a patent on a method for improving administration of a drug. If the court grants review of the Prometheus decision, the biotechnology world will have another Supreme Court nail-biter on its hands, beginning with the oral argument next fall. Even if the Court denies certiorari in Prometheus, a number of alternate channels for biotechnology patent reform remain open, including the ongoing Myriad gene patent litigation (which itself might eventually reach the Supreme Court), the SACGHS gene patent recommendations and even private, industry-driven discussions (of which rumors abound).
The Court wasted no time resolving the will-they-or-won’t-they Prometheus question. In an order issued today (pdf) the Supreme Court granted certiorari and then immediately vacated the decision and remanded the case to the Federal Circuit for consideration in light of Bilski. With Bilski in the rearview, and Prometheus back to the Federal Circuit, speculation will now shift to the question of what, if anything, the Federal Circuit will do differently with Prometheus the second time around. Let the waiting begin anew.