Patenting human biological materials and data: balancing the reward of innovation with the <i>ordre public</i> and morality exception
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The availability of human biological materials and data plays a key role in promoting biotechnological innovations and conducting biomedical research.While the function of patent rights in promoting innovation is widely discussed, there are still overarching concerns in patenting human biological materials and data, including triggering commercialization and commodification of the human body, precluding affordable access to the products or services and inducing interest extraction by patent holders to recoup investments and make excessive profits.• This article aims to analyse the extent to which the ordre public and morality exclusion can protect the human being whose bodily material has been taken and prevent legal and ethical exploitation.• We argue that the concept of ordre public and morality needs to be modified, sparking a new governance approach to better protecting human beings in a patent system that is more participatory, accountable and transparent in patent assessment.materials and technologies have a wide range of applications in biomedicine today, such as next-generation
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it