Journal of Law and the Biosciences最新文献

Organisms are complex biological entities that are less easily defined by specific structures or sequences than molecules, nucleic acids, and antibodies. Nor are they necessarily fixed in time or reproducible by repeatable methods, given their capacity for replication and mutation. Like organisms themselves, names and classifications also change over time as scientists better understand extant biodiversity. Taxonomy is the field of evolutionary biology concerned with classifying, naming, and identifying organisms, while phylogenetics concerns organisms' evolutionary history and relatedness. Here, I review the challenges evolution poses for patentees, using the examples of evolving influenza viruses and bacterial classifications, and Federal Circuit decisions relevant each issue. I conclude that careful consideration of organisms' evolutionary histories and the systematics underlying their classification in specification drafting allows patentees to: (i) mitigate the impact of scientific disagreement (such as the 'species problem' in microbiology) in claim construction; (ii) limit the effects of changing classifications on infringement analysis; (iii) describe generic categories of related organisms to encompass later-arising ones; and (iv) bolster compliance with the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Accordingly, patentees might address the challenges that evolutionary uncertainty poses for organism-centered patents by embracing these areas of evolutionary biology.

Research in biomedical and health sciences using data-intensive methods increasingly involve multi-party cross-border institutional collaborations. Regulatory complexities governing international data flow remain challenging to navigate, particularly where differing legal standards in relation to data and privacy protections exist in the respective jurisdictions. In this paper, we use the example of a use case from a joint health research program between Singapore and Switzerland to illustrate the possibility of cross-border data flow for these two jurisdictions with no reciprocal adequacy recognition standards. We have therefore compared data privacy and biomedical research ethics laws in both jurisdictions to help determine when cross-border data sharing could occur that are compliant with data privacy laws. Our comparison makes reference to when technical and organizational measures including privacy enhancing technologies are appropriate to support data sharing. This paper has the potential to inform researchers collaborating with international institutions in navigating similar privacy regulatory considerations in their research and in developing their collaborative agreements.

Recent advances in microbiome science and omics technologies are reshaping our understanding of human behavior, suggesting that microbial communities significantly influence cognition, impulse control, and aggression. Emerging studies in neuromicrobiology, including fecal transplant studies, are pointing toward a causal role for gut microbes and their metabolites in human cognition and behavior. This essay introduces the legalome-a framework integrating microbial perspectives, including microbiome and omics sciences, into the courts and larger criminal justice system. We argue that the legalome is on a trajectory that will move the field of neurolaw forward, and challenge traditional doctrines of mens rea and culpability. Drawing on recent court decisions related to auto-brewery syndrome, and neuro-microbiological research, we examine how subtle biological processes influence behavior in ways overlooked by current legal standards. Recent findings raise questions about criminal intent, biological determinism, and equitable access to scientific defenses. At the same time, emergent research also suggests potential for microbiome-based rehabilitative interventions. Despite methodological challenges, we advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration to harmonize biological research with legal principles, creating a more nuanced framework for justice in the twenty-first century. The legalome provides concrete implementation protocols and assessment tools that demonstrate practical utility for courts, practitioners, and policymakers.

Partial ectogestation is being developed in a bid to improve the survival rates and health outcomes associated with prematurity, but limited empirical research has been conducted on the views of key stakeholders, particularly healthcare professionals, in relation to this technology. This paper explores healthcare professionals' perspectives in England on the use and implementation of partial ectogestation, within the medicalized context of pregnancy and childbirth. Following an online survey, qualitative interviews were undertaken with 22 healthcare professionals who work closely with pregnant individuals and fetuses. Using a formula of the precautionary principle from environmental studies, the analysis presented illustrates healthcare professionals' apprehension toward partial ectogestation. With the fetus who may come to be transferred to an artificial placenta device at the centre of their concerns, participants were cautious of the technology producing poor outcomes and pushing the boundaries of nature. In response to these threats, they encourage strict criteria and clear parameters around the use of the technology. While healthcare professionals appear to endorse a social model of pregnancy when it comes to partial ectogestation, echoes of medicalization persist through medical determinations of poor outcomes and the continued centralization of the fetus as a patient.

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) regulates the collection and use of genetic resources, associated traditional knowledge and in some cases digital sequence information for research and development (R&D) purposes and the equitable sharing of monetary and non-monetary benefits from their use. Global examples of benefit sharing have fallen short of expectations under this framework and there is little empirical data about the effects of regulation on bio-innovation. This article argues that the limited ABS tools of authorization and contracts are not effectively delivering benefit sharing aspirations because of the disconnect between linear assumptions underlying genetic resource R&D. Through a critical legal analysis of ABS, circular economy principles and legal mechanisms, it rethinks ABS governance to propose a new circular bio-economy system for more efficient benefit sharing. It proposes a pathway for transforming the linear 'single use' regulatory model toward a generative value chain model, supported by a range of legal tools that facilitate long-term benefit sharing for the planet and its people.

Gene therapies represent a significant advancement in modern medicine, offering potential cures for untreatable genetic disorders. However, equitable access to these innovative therapies remains a critical ethical challenge within the European Union (EU). This paper examines the adequacy of the EU's centralized market authorization framework, supplemented by alternative pathways such as the Hospital Exemption and Compassionate Use Program, in addressing access disparities. While the centralized framework ensures high standards of safety, quality, and efficacy, its implementation reveals significant barriers related to affordability, geographical disparities, and fragmented national healthcare systems. High costs create financial obstacles for both healthcare systems and individuals, disproportionately affecting low-income countries and regions. Geographic disparities are further exacerbated by fragmented regulations and uneven healthcare infrastructures across member states, limiting patient access in rural areas. Alternative pathways, while designed to improve access, suffer from inconsistent national-level implementation. This paper argues that as the EU navigates the complexities of gene therapy regulation, it must focus on creating a more cohesive and inclusive framework. By doing so, it can ensure that the potential of gene therapies is realized in a manner that benefits all EU citizens, irrespective of their geographic or economic circumstances.

The human right to science, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, is by far the least understood human right despite its central role in shaping scientific innovation. Research into innovative cancer therapies and biotechnologies has been pivotal in the realization of much of these advancements. Yet much of it is not accessible, affordable, or available to patients who need them most. This article examines the nature and scope of the right to science in cancer research in the context of General Comment No. 25 on Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/GC/25) and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The normative and ethical imperative of the right is annotated to provide a basis for its justiciability when redressing the pervasive issue of inequitable access to innovative cancer therapy. It argues that a constitutional dialogue that conceptualizes the right to science is warranted when rethinking ways ethical and human rights friendly research can be achieved. This renewed interest comes at a critical juncture when science in its contemporaneous situation needs to tackle cancer healthcare inequities amid turbulent geopolitical and epidemiologic challenges while addressing the rising cancer burden globally.

The situation of persons diagnosed with locked-in syndrome (LIS) raises a significant legal challenge. As a consequence of a brainstem stroke, they are quadriplegic and lack articulate speech but have normal visual perception, bodily sensations, consciousness, and cognitive functions. It is only with human and technological assistance that they can communicate, express their will, make responsible decisions, and exert their civil rights. Insofar as they can communicate, there seems in principle to be no reason for restricting their legal capacity. This, however, has not always been recognized. In the early 2000s in Spain, two men with LIS who had been declared 'incapable' and deprived of their civil rights reclaimed them in court. Rights were given back to the one who could use a computer. They were initially refused to the other, who communicated solely by blinking and depended on a human intermediary. Only the human-machine system was trusted to convey faithfully and reliably the subject's autonomous will. This article describes these two cases in their legal context and discusses how they can throw light on the exercise of legal capacity by persons with disabilities after the adoption in 2006 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsae026.].

In February 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice, Inventorship Guidance for AI-assisted Inventions ('Inventorship Guidance'), to clarify agency policy and the Office's interpretation of inventorship requirements for patents that describe inventions made with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). From the perspective of an AI-driven drug discovery (AIDD)-focused business, the Inventorship Guidance offers potential benefits that include increased clarity in patent eligibility, facilitated collaboration between AI experts and drug discovery scientists, and incentivization for continued development of AI tools. However, there remain concerns with the application of the framework outlined in the Inventorship Guidance, such as the complex assessment of substantial human contributions in the real world, challenges in applying the Inventorship Guidance to collaborations and partnerships in the drug discovery field, and challenges in determining inventorship for AI tools versus specific drug innovations. To address these challenges, I propose recommendations for modifying the Inventorship Guidance for the AIDD industry, suggest best practices for inventorship documentation and processes, and advocate for continued partnership between the USPTO and the AIDD sector. By refining the existing framework and fostering ongoing dialog, I aim to promote a balanced approach that encourages AI-driven innovation while recognizing essential human contributions in drug discovery.