Patent Mother Nature

TAG of the Week:     "Patent Mother Nature"

Advancement in science and medicine is often driven by the excitement of new knowledge, the ability to search for a cure, and the possibility of improving population health ... in some cases, the opportunity for fame, fortune, and "commercial interest" ... Patenting medical devices, intellectual property, and genes have been vehicles to promote innovation, competition, and better goods for all.  On the other hand, could one really patent something Mother Nature has programmed in everyone of us?   

Our discussion ties back to a previous post asking about who owns genetic property. In this case, does a company have a rights to a gene?  Make a case for how you would support the case for Myriad to keep their gene patents? Would allowing Myriad to keep the gene patents encourage research or stifle competition? Or is the central issue about who gets a bigger cut of the money and profits?

Current Event:  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/health/02gene.html

Scare Tactics

TAG of the Week:   "Breast Cancer Screening and the Perception of Risk"

News Headline highlights "one in eight women 'will' develop breast cancer"...  At a first glance, this number, "1 in 8" women, looks astonishing and scary; however, individual and societal perception of risk can influence the receiver's interpretation of health risk, communicated in a positive or negative way.  What is also important to understand is that this "risk" is associated with the woman's age, family history of breast cancer, and their environmental/lifestyle/behavioral factors.

Screening for BRCA 1/2 has become an option for women to make life choices at an earlier stage before late stage of metastasis; on the other hand, having the chance to make these decisions which can have lifetime impact is not any easier.  This article piece from the UK talks about the risk of BRCA 1/2 being a rare disease of old age and describing risk as a life-time risk. How much do we really know about the risk of developing breast cancer? Suggest ways to advertise screening to those who really need it but at the same time not causing unnecessary anxiety.

Click here for the current event:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/08/breast-cancer-one-in-eight

Weekly Deals

TAG of the Week:

Welcome to Walgreens, a place where you can buy snacks, toothpaste, and a genetic DNA test...(let's take a pause)...

With high specificity and sensitivity rate, screening test and diagnostic testing are useful medical tools which can identify diseases, genetic disorders, and health issues. Once a patient is identified with a genetic disorder and with proper course of treatment, the manifestation of the disease can be prevented and even deaths can be avoided.  What happens when genetic testing is offered outside the context of the doctor's office, and the choice of getting a genetic test lies directly in the hands of consumers, in the absence of the doctor's referral. In May 2010, the drug store, Walgreens, started to offer genetic testing kits products over the counter.  Within a month, these kits were taken down from the store.

Current Event Los Angeles Times News:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2010/05/pathway-genomics-testing-kit-in-walgreens.html

If you were to market genetic testing products, would you have a disclaimer? What would it say?

Or in another scenario, a friend saw one these genetic testing products at CVS and is debating whether or not to purchase on these tests after finding out that her cousin has breast cancer. How would you advise your friend?

To Screen or Not To Screen?

TAG of the Week:

As genomic information become more readily available and accessible now compared to pre-Human Genome Project era, the boundaries between the ethic, legal, and social implications of genomic medicine become blurred, while providing a platform to question the confidentiality, ownership, and privacy of our own genome. 

Given the backdrop of newborn screening laws in place, who has ownership over genetic testing results? Who is required to receive the information? Should third parties be included? What legal rights do you think physicians should have in situations where immediate family members should be notified of certain genetic risks?  If you were to construct your own newborn screening policy, what would it entail? What are and how do we protect the patient's rights and the physician's rights?

See link of Nature Medicine Commentary Article by Reilly (2001) " Legal Issues in Genomic Medicine" Nature Medicine 7, 268 - 271. 

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n3/full/nm0301_268.html