Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

Bedside manufacturing is having a revival in healthcare, with a promise to revolutionize personalized medicine through on-site drug production. While this concept holds considerable promise, it also encounters a complex web of legal uncertainties. The current regulatory framework in Switzerland and the EU, which includes the Swiss Therapeutic Products Act and the EU directives, regulations, and guidelines, fails to adequately address its distinct challenges. Rising new technologies underscore the urgent need for regulatory reform. These technologies highlight the pressing demand for comprehensive legal frameworks that can reconcile the rapid pace of innovation with the imperatives of patient safety and product efficacy. Legal concerns extend beyond mere compliance; they encapsulate quality assurance, and liability in cases of human error. This study outlines the call for a recalibrated legal landscape that prioritizes patient-centered care while fostering the growth of bedside manufacturing. It is crucial for the legal system to evolve in tandem with these medical advancements, ensuring a secure, efficacious, and equitable integration of bedside manufacturing into healthcare.

Researchers are rapidly developing and deploying highly portable MRI technology to conduct field-based research. The new technology will widen access to include new investigators in remote and unconventional settings and will facilitate greater inclusion of rural, economically disadvantaged, and historically underrepresented populations. To address the ethical, legal, and societal issues raised by highly accessible and portable MRI, an interdisciplinary Working Group (WG) engaged in a multi-year structured process of analysis and consensus building, informed by empirical research on the perspectives of experts and the general public. This article presents the WG's consensus recommendations. These recommendations address technology quality control, design and oversight of research, including safety of research participants and others in the scanning environment, engagement of diverse participants, therapeutic misconception, use of artificial intelligence algorithms to acquire and analyze MRI data, data privacy and security, return of results and managing incidental findings, and research participant data access and control.

Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk changed dramatically when the US Supreme Court handed down unanimous rulings in Mayo v. Prometheus (2012) and Myriad v. Association for Molecular Pathology (2013). Those decisions struck down claims to methods based on 'laws of nature' (Mayo) and DNA molecules corresponding to sequences found in nature (Myriad). Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced legislation that would abrogate those decisions and specify narrow statutory exclusions to patent-eligibility in §101 of the US Patent Act. What would be the consequences of doing so? The Supreme Court decisions coincided with changes in how genetic tests were performed, reimbursed and regulated. Multi-gene sequencing supplanted oligo-gene testing as the cost of sequencing dropped 10,000-fold. Payers dramatically changed reimbursement practices. Food and Drug Administration regulation was proposed and remains in prospect. Databases for clinical interpretation made data freely available, augmenting a knowledge commons. The spectacular implosion of Theranos tempered investment in molecular diagnostics. These factors all complicate explanations of why venture capital funding for molecular diagnostics dropped relative to other sectors. Restoring patent-eligibility would put renewed pressure on other patent doctrines, such as obviousness, enablement and written description, that were not raised in the Supreme Court cases.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsad032.].

This paper contributes to the exploration of the potential application of duties related to the diligent anticipation of the (imminent) harms and (potential) benefits to humans that scientific innovation engenders to health-related contexts. In particular, it addresses the intersection between the human right to science and health-related data processing, which plays a key role in the production, translation and implementation of biomedical knowledge. The first part of the paper provides a brief recap of the interpretation of the right to science based on Art. 15 (1) (b) of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter ICESCR or Covenant) and the resulting obligations for States in the context of health and related data processing. The second part of the paper defines the relevance of the ICESCR for EU Member States and the European Union. In the third part, theses are put forward on how the human right to science and the obligations under Art. 15 (1) (b) ICESCR influence the interpretation and application of the General Data Protection Regulation as secondary EU law. By examining the justifications for using the right to science to interpret EU data protection law and by providing interpretation and application guidance on the main data protection principles in the area of health-related data processing, taking this right into account, the aim is to shape the EU data governance framework to meet the requirements of this human right. In doing so, the paper aims to close the gaps in the interpretation and application of the main rules of EU data protection law. Such standardization in the health-related context can contribute to a coherent interpretation and application of existing rules by referring to this emerging human right. Against this background, the paper identifies governance measures that the EU legislator could take to guide the processing of health-related data in line with the requirements of the right to science.

Anticipation entails contemplating the beneficial and harmful impacts of scientific and technological progress. Anticipation has a long history in science, technology, and innovation policy partly due to future impacts of scientific progress being inescapable. The link between anticipation, an undertheorized concept, and human rights law is yet to be fully explored. This paper links anticipation to the rights to science, a lesser-studied human right codified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The paper argues that the normative content of the right includes anticipation entitlements and duties. Combining the entitlements and duties with anticipation typologies leads to identifying three forms of anticipation that governments (and, in some cases, scientists) must carry out: beneficial, responsible, and participatory anticipation. The paper concludes by identifying three ways in which further conceptual work can enrich human-rights-based anticipation.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, which became applicable in 2018, contains a new accountability principle. Under this principle, controllers (ie parties determining the purposes and the means of the processing of personal data) are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating the overall compliance with the GDPR. However, interpretive uncertainties of the GDPR mean that controllers must exercise considerable judgement in designing and implementing an appropriate compliance strategy, making GDPR compliance both complex and resource-intensive. In this article, we provide conceptual clarity around GDPR compliance with respect to one core aspect of the law: the determination and relevance of the purpose of personal data processing. We derive from the GDPR's text concrete requirements for purpose specification, which we subsequently apply to the area of secondary use of personal data for scientific research. We offer guidance for correctly specifying purposes of data processing under different research scenarios. To illustrate the practical necessity of purpose specification for GDPR compliance, we then show how our proposed approach can enable controllers to meet their compliance obligations, using the example of the overarching GDPR principle of lawfulness to highlight the relevance of purpose specification for the identification of a suitable legal basis.

As we approach an era of potentially widespread consumer neurotechnology, scholars and organizations worldwide have started to raise concerns about the data privacy issues these devices will present. Notably absent in these discussions is empirical evidence about how the public perceives that same information. This article presents the results of a nationwide survey on public perceptions of brain data, to inform discussions of law and policy regarding brain data governance. The survey reveals that the public may perceive certain brain data as less sensitive than other 'private' information, like social security numbers, but more sensitive than some 'public' information, like media preferences. The findings also reveal that not all inferences about mental experiences may be perceived as equally sensitive, and perhaps not all data should be treated alike in ethical and policy discussions. An enhanced understanding of public perceptions of brain data could advance the development of ethical and legal norms concerning consumer neurotechnology.