Patenting of Human Genes: The United States, Canada and Australia Case Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper is a review of the case law of the United States of America, Canada and Australia, in which an attempt is made to answer the question on possibility of human gene patenting. The paper substantiates the relevance of this issue, examines the ethical aspects of gene patenting. The author analyzes the landmark and most significant cases from the point of view of the development of patent law of foreign countries: Diamond v. Chakrabarty (USA), Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics (USA), Myriad v. Cancer Voices (Australia), The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) v. Transgenomic (Canada). In the analysis, the author gives special attention to the arguments and conclusions of judicial institutions regarding the patentability of human genes. A conclusion is drawn regarding the continuity and possible harmonization of legislation and judicial practices of both the states mentioned in the paper and countries that have just embarked on the development of biomedical technologies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".