Gene Patents and Licensing Practices and their Impact on Patient Access to Genetic Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SACGHS was first chartered in the fall of 2002 to formulate advice and recommendations on the range of complex and sensitive medical, ethical, legal, and social issues raised by new technological developments in human genetics, including the development and use of genetic tests.One of the specific issues that the charter calls on SACGHS to examine is "current patent policy and licensing practices for their impact on access to genetic technologies."Accordingly, during the development of its first study agenda in 2003-2004, the Committee identified the role that gene patenting and licensing practices may play in patient access to genetic tests as a priority issue.SACGHS' predecessor, the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing (SACGT), 1 also looked into the issue of the impact of gene patents on patient access.In 2000-following consultations with representatives from the Federal Government, industry, academia and patient communities; legal experts; clinicians; and ethicists-SACGT concluded that further data and analysis were needed to determine whether certain patenting and licensing approaches (a) have adverse effects on access to and the cost and quality of genetic tests, (b) deter laboratories from offering tests beneficial to patients because of the use of certain licensing practices, (c) affect the training of specialists who offer genetic testing services, or (d) affect the development of quality assurance programs.In a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, SACGT also acknowledged that gene patents can be critical to the development and commercialization of gene-related products and services.In an August 8, 2001, reply to SACGT, the Acting
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".