Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy

, Volume 14, Issue 3, pp 137–140 | Cite as

Gene Patents

Perspectives from the Clinical Laboratory
  • Karen P. Mann
Current Opinion


Patents involving human genes, human genetic material, and genotype-phenotype correlations are a reality and are increasingly having a negative effect on the clinical molecular diagnostic laboratory and on patient care. Specifically, gene patents and exclusive licensing of diagnostic testing has a detrimental effect on the quality of laboratory testing, the cost of testing, turnaround time, coordination of care, patient access to testing and the ability to confirm testing at a separate laboratory. In this article, gene patents are discussed from the perspective of a medical director of a molecular diagnostics laboratory, and the effect of such patents on clinical laboratory practice is examined


Acute Myeloid Leukemia Proficiency Testing Turnaround Time Gene Patent Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this article. The author has no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.


  1. 1.
    Association for Molecular Pathology. Association for Molecular Pathology joins the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the constitutionality of gene patents [media release]. 2009 May 13 [online]. Available from URL:
  2. 2.
    American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU challenges patents on breast cancer genes: BRCA [media release]. 2010 Apr 16 [online]. Available from URL:
  3. 3.
    Federal Court rules that Myriad’s BRCA patents are invalid; deems ‘isolated DNA’ unpatentable. GenomeWeb Daily News 2010 Mar 30 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2010 May 19]
  4. 4.
    Jensen K, Murray F. Intellectual property: enhanced. Intellectual property landscape of the human genome. Science 2005 Oct 14; 310(5746): 239–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cook-Deegan R. Gene patents. In: Crowley M, editor. From birth to death and bench to clinic: the Hastings Center bioethics briefing book for journalists, policymakers, and campaigns. Garrison (NY): the Hastings Center, 2008 [online]. Available from URL: = 2174 [Accessed 2010 May 19]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, et al. Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services. J Mol Diagn 2003 Feb; 5(1): 3–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klein RD. Gene patents and genetic testing in the United States. Nat Biotechnol 2007 Sep; 25(9): 989–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leonard DG. Medical practice and gene patents: a personal perspective. Acad Med 2002 Dec; 77 (12 Pt 2): 1388–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Merz JF. Disease gene patents: overcoming unethical constraints on clinical laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 1999 Mar; 45(3): 324–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Merz JF, Kriss AG, Leonard DG, et al. Diagnostic testing fails the test. Nature 2002 Feb 7; 415(6872): 577–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ledbetter DH. Gene patenting and licensing: the role of academic researchers and advocacy groups. Genet Med 2008 May; 10(5): 314–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bagg A, Braziel RM, Arber DA, et al. Immunoglobulin heavy chain gene analysis in lymphomas: a multi-center study demonstrating the heterogeneity of performance of polymerase chain reaction assays. J Mol Diagn 2002 May; 4(2): l8–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lutz BJ, Bowers BJ. Patient-centered care: understanding its interpretation and implementation in health care. Sch Inq Nurs Pract 2000 Summer; 14(2): 165–83; discussion 183-7PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyEmory University School of MedicineAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations