The sustainability of many research endeavors, particularly in controversial areas, requires an understanding of public concerns. As such, governance strategies should be developed to sustain public trust.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Relevant articles
Open Access articles citing this article.
-
Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials
BMC Health Services Research Open Access 22 October 2021
-
The gene patent controversy on Twitter: a case study of Twitter users’ responses to the CHEO lawsuit against Long QT gene patents
BMC Medical Ethics Open Access 25 August 2015
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
References
Sharper, V. Science, Bioethics and the Public Interest: The Hastings Center Report (The Hastings Center, Garrison, N.Y., 2002).
Angel, M. N. Engl. J. Med. 342, 1516–1518 (2000).
Saltus, R. Critics claim patents stifle gene testing. Boston Globe (December 20, 1999).
Rafinski, K. Hospital's patent stokes debate on human genes. Miami Herald (November 14, 1999).
Kolata, G. Who owns your genes? New York Times (May 15, 2000).
Einsiedel, E. & Smith, J. Canadian Views on Patenting Biotechnology (Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, June 2005).
Pollara and Earnscliffe Research. Public Opinion Research into Biotechnology Issues in the US and Canada: Eighth Wave Summary Report (Government of Canada, Ottawa, 2003).
Pollara and Earnscliffe Research. Seventh Wave Report: Executive Report Prepared for the Biotechnology Assistant Deputy Minister Coordinating Committee of the Government of Canada (2002).
Earnscliffe Research. Patenting of Higher Life Forms: Research Findings. Report Prepared for Industry Canada (2003).
Rabino, I. Nat. Genet. 29, 15–16 (2001).
Nicol, D. & Nielsen, J. Patents and Medical Biotechnology: An Empirical Analysis of Issues Facing the Australian Industry. Centre for Law and Genetics Occasional Paper No. 6 (2003).
Gaskell, G. et al. Europeans and Biotechnology in 2005: Patterns and Trends Eurobarometer 64.3 Report to the European Commission's Directorate-General for Research (May 2006).
Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat. International Public Opinion Research on Emerging Technologies: Canada-US Survey Results (Canadian Biotechnology Secretariat, Industry Canada, Ottawa, 2005).
Earnscliffe Research. Third Wave Report: Public Opinion Research into Biotechnology Issues. Prepared for the Biotechnology Assistant Deputy Minister Coordinating Committee of the Government of Canada (2000).
Critchley, C.R. Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, forthcoming volume.
Chalmers, D & Nicol, D. Int. J. Biotechnol. 6, 116–133 (2004).
Caulfield, T. Med. Law Int. 7, 219–232 (2006).
Bhandari, M. et al. CMAJ 170, 477 (2004).
Caulfield, T. PLoS Med. 1, 178–179 (2005).
Clark, J., Piccolo, J., Stanton, B., & Tyson, K. Patent pools: a solution to the problem of access in biotechnology patents? (US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C., 2000).
Van Overwalle, G., van Zimmeren, E., Verbeure, B. & Matthijs, G. Nat. Rev. Genet. 7, 143–148 (2006).
Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property. (US DOJ and FTC, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1995).
Goldstein J . et al. Drug Discovery World, 86–90 (Spring 2005).
Resnik, D.B. J. Philos. Sci. Law 3, (January 2003).
Shapiro, C. Navigating the patent thicket: cross licenses, patent pools and standard-setting. in Jaffe, A.B., Lerner, J., & Stern S. (eds.) Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 1. (MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2001).
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Guidelines for the Licensing of Genetic Inventions. (OECD Publications, Paris, 2006).
Goozner, M. PLoS Med. 3, e126 (2006).
Ebersole T., Esmond, R. & Schwartzman, R. Stem cells—patent pools to the rescue? Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein, Fox, PLLC (July 2005).
Verbeure, B., van Zimmeren, E., Matthijs, G. & Van Overwalle, G. Trends Biotechnol. 24, 114–120 (2006).
Sung, L.M. & Pelto, D.J. Greater Predictability May Result in Patent Pools. Paper for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, Washington, D.C., 2002). http://www.ftc.gov/opp/intellect/020417lawrencemsung1.pdf.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lori Sheremeta, Michael Sharp, C.J. Murdoch and Robyn Hyde-Lay for the invaluable research assistance as well as Genome Alberta, AHFMR, the Stem Cell Network, Australian Research Council and AFMNet for the funding support. We would also like to thank all of the participants of the Genome Alberta Banff Patenting Workshop (May 2006) for their insightful comments and Richard Gold and the Center for Intellectual Property Policy for their involvement.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caulfield, T., Einsiedel, E., Merz, J. et al. Trust, patents and public perceptions: the governance of controversial biotechnology research. Nat Biotechnol 24, 1352–1354 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1352
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1106-1352
This article is cited by
-
Translation and validation of the greek version of a questionnaire measuring patient views on participation in clinical trials
BMC Health Services Research (2021)
-
The gene patent controversy on Twitter: a case study of Twitter users’ responses to the CHEO lawsuit against Long QT gene patents
BMC Medical Ethics (2015)
-
Biobanking: shifting the analogy from consent to surrogacy
Genetics in Medicine (2012)
