Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:48:56.409Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discovery, Transfer, and Diffusion of Technologies for the Detection of Genetic Disorders: Policy Implications

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Neil A. Holtzman
Neil A. Holtzman
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the current interest in genetics stems from the Human Genome Project. Although the project will accelerate the identification of disease-related genes, as currently formulated it may retard discovery of gene function and effective treatments, thereby prolonging the stage in which people at risk of genetic diseases can be identified but not treated. This stage is fraught with ethical problems. The project's goal of sequencing the entire human genome could also detract from basic biological research, as could the growing interest of universities in biotechnology transfer to the commercial sector.

Type
Special Section: Genetic Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , Fall 1994 , pp. 562 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Adams, M., Dubnick, M., & Kerlavage, A. R.Sequence identification of 2,375 human brain genes. Nature, 1992, 355, 632–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Adams, M., Kelley, J., & Gocayne, J.Complementary DNA sequencing: Expressed sequence tags and Human Genome Project. Science, 1991, 252, 1651–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Anderson, C.Genome shortcut leads to problems. Science, 1993, 259, 1684–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Anderson, C.NSF wins, NIH loses in Clinton’s 1994 budget. Science, 1993, 260, 24–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Apple, R.Patenting university research. ISIS, 1989, 80, 375–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Billings, P., Kohn, M. A., de Cuevas, M. et al. , Discrimination as a consequence of genetic testing. American Journal of Human Genetics, 1992, 50, 476–82.Google Scholar
7.Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Lewis, K. S., & Wise, D.Industrial support of university research in biotechnology. Science, 1986, 231, 24–46.Google Scholar
8.Blumenthal, D., Gluck, M., Lewis, K. S. et al. , University-industry research relationships in biotechnology: Implications for the university. Science, 1986, 232, 1361–66.Google Scholar
9.Botkin, J.The legal concept of wrongful life. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1988, 259, 1541–45.Google Scholar
10.Brenner, S. The human genome: The nature of the enterprise. In Ciba Foundation Symposium 149, human genetic information: Science, law and ethics, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 1990, 6–12.Google Scholar
11.Butterfield, F. Studies find a family link to criminality. New York Times, 01 31, 1992, p. 1.Google Scholar
12.Dickson, D.The new politics of science, New York: Pantheon Books, 1984.Google Scholar
13.Doolittle, R.Biotechnology —The enormous cost of success. New England Journal of Medicine, 1991, 325, 1176–77.Google Scholar
14.Elias, S., & Annas, G.Routine prenatal genetic screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 1987, 317, 1407–09.Google Scholar
15.Epstein, C., Childs, B., Fraser, E. C. et al. , Genetic counseling (statement of the American Society of Human Genetics ad hoc committee on genetic counseling). American Journal of Human Genetics, 1975, 27, 240.Google Scholar
16.Gelernter, J., Goldman, D., & Risch, N.The Al allele at the D2 dopamine receptor gene and alcoholism. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 1673–77.Google Scholar
16a. Geller, G., Holtzman, N. A. A qualitative assessment of primary care physicians' perceptions about the ethical and social implications of offering genetic testing. Qualitative Health Research, 1994, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17.Geller, G., Tambor, E. S., Chase, G. A. et al. , Incorporation of genetics into primary care practice: will physicians do the counseling and will they be directive? Archives of Family, 1993, 2, 1119–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Genome Patent Working Group. Federally funded genome research: Science and technology transfer issues. Proceedings of a public meeting. Washington, DC: Office of Science and Technology, 1992.Google Scholar
19.Greenberg, D.Linkage analysis of “necessary” disease loci versus “susceptibility” loci. American Journal of Human Genetics, 1993, 52, 135–43.Google ScholarPubMed
20.Hewitt, M. & Holtzman, N. U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment: The commercial development of tests for human genetic disorders. Unpublished staff paper, OTA Health Program, 1988.Google Scholar
21.Hofman, K. J., Tambor, E. S., Chase, G. et al. , Physicians’ knowledge of genetics and genetic tests. Academic Medicine, 1993, 68, 625–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Holden, C.Why divorce runs in families. Science, 1992, 258, 1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Holtzman, N.Proceed with caution. Predicting genetic risks in the recombinant DNA era. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
24.Holtzman, N.The diffusion of new genetic tests for predicting disease. FASEB Journal, 1992, 6, 2806–12.Google Scholar
25. Institute of Medicine Committee on Assessing Genetic Risks, Andrews, L. B., Fullarton, J. E., Holtzman, N. A., Motulsky, A. G. (eds.), Assessing genetic risks: Implications for health and social policy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1994.Google Scholar
26.Kenney, M.Biotechnology: The university-industrial complex. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986.Google Scholar
27.Korn, D.Patent and trade secret protection in university-industry research relationships in biotechnology, Harvard Journal of Legislation, 1987, 24, 191–238.Google Scholar
28.Krimsky, S.Biotechnics and society. The rise of industry genetics. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991.Google Scholar
29.Levy, R.Biotechnology–The enormous cost of success. New England Journal of Medicine, 1991, 325, 1177–78.Google ScholarPubMed
30.Mackenzie, M., Keating, P., & Cambrosio, A.Patents and free scientific information in biotechnology: Making monoclonal antibodies proprietary. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1990, 15, 65–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31.National Institutes of Health. NIH data book 1992. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1992.Google Scholar
32.National Science Board. Science and engineering indicators—1991. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press, 1993.Google Scholar
33.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. Commercial biotechnology: an international analysis. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1984, OTA-BA-218.Google Scholar
34.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress. New developments in biotechnology: U.S. investment in biotechnology. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1988, OTA-BA-360.Google Scholar
35.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, New developments in biotechnology: Patenting life—Special report. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989, OTA-BA-370.Google Scholar
36.Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Pharmaceutical R & D: Costs, risks and rewards. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993, OTA-H-522.Google Scholar
37.Powledge, T. Toward the year 2005. AAAs Observer. 1989,1 (supplement to Science 246).Google Scholar
38.Quaid, K., & Morris, M.Reluctance to undergo predictive testing: The case of Huntington disease. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 1993, 45, 41–5.Google Scholar
39.U.S. Congress. Patent and trademark laws. 94 Stat. Washington, DC, 1980, 3015–29.Google Scholar
40.U.S. Congress. Patent and trademark law amendments. Washington, DC, 1980, 96–1307, part 2, 1–25.Google Scholar
41.Watson, J., Gilman, M., Witkowski, J., & Zoller, M. (eds.). Recombinant DNA, 2nd ed.New York: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1992.Google Scholar
42.Weiner, C. Universities, professors, and patents: A continuing controversy. Technology Review, 1986, 02/03, 33–43.Google Scholar
43.Weiner, C.Patenting and academic research: Historical case studies. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 1987, 12, 50–62.Google Scholar
44.White, T. Intellectual property and genetic testing: A commentary. In. Frankel, M. & Teich, A. (eds.), The genetic frontier: Ethics, law, and policy. Washington, DC: Association for the Advancement of Science, 1994, 199–208.Google Scholar
45.Winkleby, M. A., Rockhill, B., Jatulis, D., & Fortmann, S. P.The medical origins of homelessness. American Journal of Public Health, 1992, 82, 1395–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46.Yoxen, E.The gene business. New York: Harper & Row, 1983.Google Scholar