Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Correspondence
  • Published:

Survey confirms fears about licensing of genetic tests

Nature volume 402, page 118 (1999)Cite this article

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

Sir

S. M. Thomas et al., in their surveys of patents for genetic diseases1,2, expressed concern about monopolization by companies of “an entire gene and its mutations for all diagnostic and therapeutic purposes”1. We asked a sample of owners of genetic testing patents about their licensing activities, and here we report that these patents are being exclusively licensed, permitting the monopolization of clinical testing services as Thomas et al. predicted. This result heightens our concerns that these patents may raise costs, curtail access to testing and limit clinical observation, which is fundamental to the practice of medicine3,4.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Thomas, S. M. et al. Nature 380, 387–388 (1996).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Thomas, S. M. et al. Nature 388, 709 (1997).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cho, M. K. & Merz, J. F. Nature 390, 221 (1997).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Merz, J. F. Clin. Chem. 45, 324–330 (1999).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Merz, J. F. et al. Mol. Diagnosis 2, 299–304 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. White, T. J. in The Genetic Frontier: Ethics, Law and Policy (eds Frankel, M. S. & Teich, A. H.) 199–208 (AAAS, Washington DC, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Beardsley, T. Nature 311, 3 (1984).

    Article  ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Nature 399, 619 (1999).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. New York University School of Law, New York, 10012, New York, USA

    Anna Schissel

  2. Department of Molecular and Cellular Engineering, Center for Bioethics, and Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19104-3308, Pennsylvania, USA

    Jon F. Merz

  3. Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics, Palo Alto, 94305, California, USA

    Mildred K. Cho

Authors
  1. Anna Schissel
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jon F. Merz
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mildred K. Cho
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schissel, A., Merz, J. & Cho, M. Survey confirms fears about licensing of genetic tests. Nature 402, 118 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/45907

Download citation

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/45907

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing