PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14714689

Perusing property rights in DNA.

Abstract

Many practical questions have arisen since the use of patents relating to DNA has become progressively more common after the landmark case of Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980: What ownership rights do patents confer? What is owned? Who owns it? What does ownership mean to nonoweners? The central theme of the chapter is that much of the debate about patent rights relating to DNA is needlessly burdened by concerns that are inapposite, given an informed understanding of how things actually work in this area; and that as a result, insufficient attention is paid to exploring propositions that might elucidate or even alleviate pertinent problems in need of solutions. The approach of the chapter is more analytical than prescriptive. It endeavors to unpack how property rights in this area actually operate and concludes by making a few modest prescriptions about areas for future study, including efforts to explore the mechanisms that might be at play when actual transactions in basic biological materials and protocols break down. The intuition behind the chapter is that although many of the problems identified by patent critics do exist and, in theory, might be pernicious in creating some inefficiency in the form of dead-weight loss, in practice these problems turn out to be less pernicious than those likely to be caused by alternative regimes and are mitigated through various behaviors of market participants.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

F Scott Kieff. 2003. Perusing property rights in DNA.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2660(03)50007-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

ACOG Committee Opinion No. 359: commercial enterprises in medical practice.

Increasing numbers of physicians sell and promote both medical and nonmedical products as part of their practices. Physicians always have rendered advice and treatment for a fee, and this practice is appropriate. It is unethical under most circumstances, however, for physicians to sell or promote medical or nonmedical products or services for their financial benefit. The following activities are considered unethical: sale of prescription drugs to be used at home, sale or promotion of nonprescription medicine, sale or promotion of presumptively therapeutic agents that generally are not accepted as part of standard medical practice, sale or promotion of non-health-related items, recruitment of patients or other health care professionals into multilevel marketing arrangements, and sale or promotion of any product in whose sale the physician has a significant financial interest. It is ethical and appropriate, however, to sell products to patients as follows: sale of devices or drugs that require professional administration in the office setting; sale of therapeutic agents, when no other facilities can provide them at reasonable convenience and at reasonable cost; sale of products that clearly are external to the patient-physician relationship, when such a sale would be considered appropriate in an external relationship; and sale of low-cost products for the benefit of community organizations. A rationale is provided for both the prohibited activities and exceptions.

Commerce↗