Biobank donation in search of public benefits and the potential impact of intellectual property rights over access to health-technologies developed: A focus on the bioethical implications.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q1 LAW Medical Law Review Pub Date : 2024-04-24 DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwae010
Aisling M McMahon, Opeyemi I Kolawole
{"title":"Biobank donation in search of public benefits and the potential impact of intellectual property rights over access to health-technologies developed: A focus on the bioethical implications.","authors":"Aisling M McMahon, Opeyemi I Kolawole","doi":"10.1093/medlaw/fwae010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The availability of biomaterials is a key component of health research and the development of new health-technologies (including, diagnostics, medicines, and vaccines). People are often encouraged by biobanks to donate samples altruistically to such biobanks. While empirical evidence suggests many donors are motivated by the desire to contribute towards developing new health-technologies for society. However, a tension can arise as health-technologies whose development is contributed to by donors' biomaterials will often be protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs), including patents. Patents give rightsholders control over how patented technologies are used and can be used in a way that impedes public access to technologies developed. Yet, there are no binding European legal obligations mandating disclosure to donors of how IPRs can operate over downstream health-technologies and how they could impact access to health-technologies developed, nor are there legally binding obligations to ensure public accessibility of technologies developed. Focusing on the bioethical implications posed, this article argues that the current situation can impact donors' autonomy and dignity interests. A more holistic approach is needed for biobank donation, which embeds a consideration of donors' expectations/interests from the point of donation through to how such samples are used and how health-technologies developed are accessed. We put forward avenues that seek to address such issues.","PeriodicalId":49146,"journal":{"name":"Medical Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwae010","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The availability of biomaterials is a key component of health research and the development of new health-technologies (including, diagnostics, medicines, and vaccines). People are often encouraged by biobanks to donate samples altruistically to such biobanks. While empirical evidence suggests many donors are motivated by the desire to contribute towards developing new health-technologies for society. However, a tension can arise as health-technologies whose development is contributed to by donors' biomaterials will often be protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs), including patents. Patents give rightsholders control over how patented technologies are used and can be used in a way that impedes public access to technologies developed. Yet, there are no binding European legal obligations mandating disclosure to donors of how IPRs can operate over downstream health-technologies and how they could impact access to health-technologies developed, nor are there legally binding obligations to ensure public accessibility of technologies developed. Focusing on the bioethical implications posed, this article argues that the current situation can impact donors' autonomy and dignity interests. A more holistic approach is needed for biobank donation, which embeds a consideration of donors' expectations/interests from the point of donation through to how such samples are used and how health-technologies developed are accessed. We put forward avenues that seek to address such issues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为寻求公共利益而捐赠生物库,以及知识产权对获取已开发的卫生技术的潜在影响:关注生物伦理影响。
生物材料的可用性是健康研究和新健康技术(包括诊断、药物和疫苗)开发的关键组成部分。生物库经常鼓励人们向生物库无私捐赠样本。经验证据表明,许多捐赠者的动机是希望为社会开发新的健康技术做出贡献。然而,由于捐赠者的生物材料有助于开发的健康技术往往受到知识产权(IPR)的保护,包括专利权的保护,因此可能会产生矛盾。专利权使权利人可以控制专利技术的使用方式,并可能阻碍公众获取所开发的技术。然而,欧洲并没有任何具有约束力的法律义务,强制要求向捐赠者披露知识产权对下游卫生技术的影响,以及如何影响对所开发卫生技术的获取,也没有任何具有法律约束力的义务来确保公众对所开发技术的可获取性。本文将重点放在所带来的生物伦理影响上,认为目前的状况可能会影响捐赠者的自主权和尊严利益。生物库捐献需要一种更全面的方法,其中包含对捐献者从捐献到如何使用这些样本以及如何获取所开发的健康技术的期望/利益的考虑。我们提出了解决这些问题的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Medical Law Review
Medical Law Review MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
11.80%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Medical Law Review is established as an authoritative source of reference for academics, lawyers, legal and medical practitioners, law students, and anyone interested in healthcare and the law. The journal presents articles of international interest which provide thorough analyses and comment on the wide range of topical issues that are fundamental to this expanding area of law. In addition, commentary sections provide in depth explorations of topical aspects of the field.
期刊最新文献
FemTech: empowering reproductive rights or FEM-TRAP for surveillance? The two lives of the Mental Capacity Act: rethinking East-west binaries in comparative analysis. Regulating algorithmic care in the European Union: evolving doctor-patient models through the Artificial Intelligence Act (AI-Act) and the liability directives. Anticipatory declarations in obstetric care: a relational and spatial examination of patient empowerment, institutional impacts and temporal challenges. Money matters: a critique of 'informed financial consent'.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1