Obstacles to Unlocking the Human Genome

Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2009/05/19/A_Closer_Look_at_Personal_Genomic_Testing

A panel of DNA, policy, and research experts analyze the social implications of pharmaceutical companies and universities patenting the human genome. Ballon compares the argument against releasing genetic information to a 1961 study of cancer diagnosis.

-----

Personal genomic testing (the analysis of the DNA of individuals) is now available for less than $400. The consequences of personal genetic testing are often debated, with advocates arguing that genetic data can lead to improved health care and critics warning that consumers may be unduly worried upon learning results.

California regulations impose conditions on firms providing personal genomic testing. This symposium examines genomic testing technology, its ramifications, government regulation of the industry, and whether individuals should have their genome analyzed. - Commonwealth Club of California

Linda Avey has over 20 years of sales and business development experience in the biopharmaceutical industry in San Francisco, Boston, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. Prior to starting 23andMe, she developed translational research collaborations with academic and pharmaceutical partners for Affymetrix and Perlegen Sciences. Avey also spent time at Spotfire helping scientists understand the power of data visualization and at Applied Biosystems during the early days of the human genome project. The advent of high density genome-wide scanning technologies brought huge potential for significant discoveries. However, the lack of sufficient funding to enable adequate studies prompted Avey to think of a new research model. These ideas led to the formation of 23andMe. Her primary interest is the acceleration of personalized medicine, using genetic profiles to target the right drug to the right person at the correct dose. Avey graduated from Augustana College with a B.A. in biology.

Daniel Ballon is Senior Policy Fellow in Technology Studies at the Pacific Research Institute. Dr. Ballon's research focuses on policies which promote innovation in the technology sector. He previously spent ten years conducting applied research in biotechnology, and his work has been published in leading biomedical journals. Prior to joining PRI, he served as science and technology policy advisor for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich at the American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Ballon received his Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley and a B.A. in Molecular Biology and Biochemistry from Wesleyan University.

David C. Magnus, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Pediatrics and Medicine, Stanford University. Magnus is also Director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• genetic
• testing
• dna
• tests
• genomes
• biotech
• biotechnology
• information
• privacy
• aclu
• cures
• curing
• cancer
• disease
• fora.tv
• foratv
• fora
• tv

[studio7manga]

I can't believe the legal system was set up to even allow patents on the human genome. I feel like throwing up and I'll be damned if this situation stays in place for long.

[averylbrooks]

"I can't believe the legal system was set up to even allow patents on the human genome. I feel like throwing up and I'll be damned if this situation stays in place for long."

I couldn't agree more. It should be challenged in court.

[happinesson]

There will be a lot of consequences if you allow patents on the human genome. I don't get the point of getting my rights to know what is from the beginning is mine!

[slapcompany]

Success for Managers is: Respect. To be paid to think, not just to comply. To be trusted.

[interstellarwonder]

"I can't believe the legal system was set up to even allow patents on the human genome." i want my own patent.

[studio7manga]

@videosfromderelix

What are you even talking about at this point? What is your position on anything? You've just been talking shit the whole time. Make a case for something, anything and maybe I'll treat you with some respect. Until then, fuck off.

[videosfromderelix]

@studio7manga of course, because you blindly believe whatever your told while i'm skeptical of all things, including your idiotic faith based beliefs.

Call me whatever childish names you need to, doesn't change the fact that your beliefs are just as idiotic as any hippie's belief.

Hug a tree? How did you get environmentalism from any of my comments? You sound pretty obsessed.

[Hooya2]

@studio7manga People knew oil burned, and used it for that function, long before it's structure was discovered. If you found a novel feature that allowed practical applications, like a new way to refine it, then you could patent it.

If you did that then you would be fully within your rights to restrict that method of refining to your factories in Jersey. Or, if you WEREN'T crazy, you would sell it to the highest bidder, or expand your company hugely. Neither would stifle the industry.

[studio7manga]

@Hooya2

Right I agree, but it seems that it would be better to patent the treatment that studying the gene yielded rather than the gene itself. Patenting the gene pretty much ensures no other potentially better treatments will come around during the time of patent, unless of course the patent holder wants to improve on their work. But with a monopoly why would they?

[Hooya2]

@studio7manga Whoa, old chain of comments. But I'll try to hop right on the bandwagon.

The problem is that there is something in the way of 'interference' from multiple people studying the same gene; if one person discovers the gene, studies it, figures out what it does, and spends all this money on research, and then another company comes along and makes a breakthrough using it. There's another clip, I think from this lecture, where they discuss exactly that.

[studio7manga]

@videosfromderelix

The history channel is shit, but I don't waist money on cable anyway. Your point?

Go hug some trees and talk about how spiritual you are, you're out of your league hippy.