News

The Center for Bioethics is kicking off fall semester with Ethics Ground Rounds and Mini Bioethics Academy. The Center for Bioethics' Ethics Grand Rounds is a series of monthly seminars featuring noted local, national, & international bioethics scholars lecturing on a variety of ethical issues in health care & the life sciences. The Mini Bioethics Academy is a three-evening series that engages with faculty and fosters discussion on complex, thought-provoking bioethical issues facing society. Read More.

According to Wired magazine, "Since the mid-2000s, clinics have been selling expensive, unproven stem-cell treatments to any patient desperate enough to believe their claims of cures for everything from arthritis to autism." These clinics have "been tied to serious infections, several cases of blindness, and one patient’s death." Leigh Turner, a professor at the Center for Bioethics, a Consortium member, has authored several major research papers on the growing availability of questionable stem-cell therapies. Turner notes that despite greater FDA scutiny, which includes an "increase the rule changes and the public hearings and more inspections and warning letters and the lawsuits, the market is still expanding at a rapid rate.” A recent Pro Publica/New Yorker investigation provides additional details of the promotional methods and dubious science that ensnares consumers in these dangerous interventions.

A new article in Wired by Megan Molteni describes potentially momentous changes in the legal status of gene patents. According to Molteni, "In 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously struck down patents on two human genes – BRCA1 and BRCA2 – associated with breast and ovarian cancers. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court at the time that isolated DNA 'is a product of nature and not patent eligible.' The historic decision invalidated patents held by Myriad Genetics" and opened the way for companies like 23andMe to offer direct-to-consumer tests of BRCA and other genes. A new bill making its way through Congress would make "changes to several sections of the statutes covering patent law and [add] a provision that would nullify the Supreme Court’s exceptions." The congressional debate is driven by concerns that overly stringent patent rules are hindering US companies from creating potentially lucrative new diagnostic tools, allowing rivals like China to outpace American innovation. Hearings are currently underway to clarify the intention of the bill and ensure it effectively addresses industry concerns. Read the entire Wired article here, and one on the same topic from GenomeWeb here. For more information about genomics law and policy, visit the NIH-funded LawSeq^SM website, created by the Consortium in collaboration with Vanderbilt University. 

Videos of all sessions of the LawSeq^SM conference are now available. This event brought together an eminent group of scientists, researchers, attorneys and clinicians on the campus of the University of Minnesota to grapple with gaps and areas of confusion in genomic law. The symposium was part of the LawSeq_^SM project, an NIH-funded effort to shape the future of law and policy to encourage the translation of genomic medicine ​from lab to clinic. View the conference videos here. A related resource is the LawSeq^SM genomic law website, which includes a searchable database of relevant state and federal law as well as articles and commentaries to provide context.