Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

Biosimilars, which are affordable alternatives to biologic medicines, face delays in market entry due to the current patent litigation framework under the Biologic Price Competition and Innovation Act. Currently, biosimilar manufacturers can only initiate patent litigation to attempt to clear weak and invalid patents after submitting their Biologic License Application to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which happens after completing extensive, and costly clinical trials. By contrast, generic drug manufacturers can start litigation earlier due to shorter development times and less stringent clinical requirements, allowing them to launch immediately after the primary patent expires. We propose allowing biosimilars to begin patent litigation at the start of phase 3 clinical trials, the final stage of biosimilar development, where the product and manufacturing process and product profile are largely finalized. This change would enable biosimilar firms to resolve patent issues well before the brand biologic's primary patent expiration date, potentially reducing market entry delays by about 1.8 years. This article examines the issues surrounding initiation of biosimilar litigation and suggests litigation reforms to expedite biosimilar market availability.

This article examines the controversial practice of law enforcement agencies searching genetic samples obtained in health care settings, without a warrant or consent. While police have previously used public genealogy databases for this purpose, our article describes how they are now secretly accessing genetic information from newborn screening programs and medical tests. This raises ethical and legal concerns, blurring the line between health care and law enforcement. This, in turn, may discourage people from seeking important medical care due to distrust in the police and privacy concerns. To explore public attitudes on this issue, the authors conducted a study examining how lay people view the forensic use of clinical genetic data for different types of crimes. Our findings suggest that people take a utilitarian perspective, where they are more likely to support warrantless searches for serious and ongoing crimes but more likely to oppose these searches for more minor offenses like theft. However, regardless of public support, the little-known practice undermines trust in health care institutions and violates patient privacy. We recommend three legal reforms to restrict law enforcement access to clinical and public health genetic databases and to require explicit consent to forensic uses.

Advances in generating human mini-organ prototypes will further improve fundamental research, disease modeling, drug screening and the development of personalized medicine. Currently, there is no legal definition, identified legal status, or existing regulatory framework for organoids. Ethical discussions regarding brain and embryo-like mini-organ models leave researchers uncertain about the extent to which work on any organoids is legally permissible. The legal protection of human embryos, many other separated human body parts as well as organoids is more complex than the application of the traditional rules of rights in rem or of the law of personality alone. The paper's focus is to examine whether the legal status of organoids or lack thereof, could influence their concrete regulatory framework, or whether a legal status in private law is necessary for their regulation. This paper deliberately chooses not to attempt a unifying theory of law but rather to argue for a possible regulation of organoids using the example of Swiss law. While, at present, there is no comprehensive research addressing either the status or the regulation of organoids, we believe that the argumentation presented could improve the overall understanding of how a potential organoid regulation could be set out within national legal frameworks.

This paper considers the applicability and implications of intellectual property rights (IPRs) for open science practices in the context of genomic-related health research and innovation in Africa. The first part provides a brief background of the gaps in genomics and health research in Africa, highlighting the possible role of open science in facilitating collaborative research to address the peculiar health needs of the continent. The second part examines intellectual property protection in genomic-related health research and innovation in Africa, outlining some of the existing legal instruments and policies guiding the application of IPRs, focusing on patents and copyrights. Thereafter, the paper examined how intellectual property standards could impact the adoption of open science in genomics health research in Africa. In doing this, the paper considers the role they could play as enablers of open science practices in genomics health research and innovation and the potential challenges they pose. The paper concludes with recommendations regarding aspects of the intellectual property policies and legal frameworks in Africa that could be calibrated to overcome potential challenges and, thereby, stimulate the adoption of an open science model and promote open, collaborative genomics health research and innovation in the continent.

Uterus transplantation is a new fertility treatment for some women who lack a functioning uterus. The number of countries where these transplants are performed has steadily increased, and in Mexico, there is a growing interest in this procedure among patients, researchers, and clinicians. In this paper we look at Mexico and its legal system in order to determine what is the legal status of uterus transplants, and whether there is a right to them according to Mexican legislation. To achieve this objective, we have organized this paper into four sections. First, we present a brief synopsis of what uterus transplants entail. Second, we carry out a historical overview of uterus transplants in Mexico. Third, we present the federal laws and regulations that apply to uterus transplants in Mexico. Finally, we defend that under Mexican legislation there is a positive right to uterus transplants. We substantiate the former by focusing on the right to the protection of health and the right to family making.

Discourse around ownership of genomic sequence data has proliferated over recent years. There are likely to be few people who don't feel a degree of connectedness to their genomic data. The inclusion of individuals' genomic data in genomic datasets is critical to genomic research, and these datasets are most effective if shared widely. Genomic research consortia are an integral part of the genomic data sharing ecosystem, critical in facilitating data sharing among research groups. This article considers the property status of genomic data at various stages of the research life cycle, and the potential 'ownership' claims that may be made by various actors in data sharing networks. It does so by comparing the legal position with the findings of a study that examined policy documents and guidelines produced by international research consortia. This analysis enabled us to assess whether consideration of property interests is at the forefront of data sharing efforts, and if so, where such property interests are likely to reside.

State militaries have strong interests in developing enhanced warfighters: taking otherwise healthy service personnel (soldiers, marines, pilots, etc.) and pushing their biological, physiological, and cognitive capacities beyond their individual statistical or baseline norm. However, the ethical and regulatory challenges of justifying research into these kinds of interventions to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of enhancements in the military has not been well explored. In this paper, we offer, in the context of the US Common Rule and Institutional Review Board framework, potential justifications for justifying research into enhancing warfighters on the grounds of (i) individual and group risk reduction; (ii) protection of third parties such as civilians; and (iii) military effectiveness.

In July 2023, the United States and the European Union introduced the Data Privacy Framework (DPF), introducing the third generation of cross-border data transfer agreements constituting adequacy with respect to personal data transfers under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) between the European Union (EU) and the US. This framework may be used in cross-border healthcare and research relationships, which are highly desirable and increasingly essential to innovative health technology development and health services deployment. A reliable model meeting EU adequacy requirements could enhance the transfer of patient and research participant data. While the DPF might present a familiar terrain for US organizations, it also brings unique challenges. A notable concern is the ability of individual EU Member States to establish individual and additional requirements for health data that are more restrictive than GDPR requirements, which are not anticipated by the DPF. This article highlights the DPF's potential impact on the healthcare and research sectors, finding that the DPF may not provide the degree of lawful health data transfer desirable for healthcare entities. We examine the DPF against a background of existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act obligations and other GDPR transfer tools to offer alternatives that can improve the likelihood of reliable, lawful health data transfer between the US and EU.

The regulation of neurotechnologies for non-medical purposes such as enhancement, gaming, or well-being is a topic of ongoing controversy. Without much attention, the European Union addressed it by two implementing regulations to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) for non-invasive brain stimulation devices, passed in December 2022. This paper presents main aspect of these regulations and the conditions for placing non-medical neurodevices on the EU market, especially the risk threshold and the requirement for pre-market certification. It also provides a first critical comment on selected aspects and the unclear situation regarding research only devices which has alarmed the European neurotechnology sector.