Hey, CLB Podcast listeners–we’ve got No. 7 for you. This month, we feature Hank Greely with…
- SLS 1L, Amanda Rubin, on the annoucement of President Obama’s Brain Map Initiative;
- SLS 1L, Roland Nadler, on the electrifying work of transcranial direct current stimulation;
- Fellow Jake Sherkow on the less electrifying, but still very important, Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans case decided by the Supreme Court;
- and himself on mice with human neurons.
You can hear the podcast, here:
Podcast No. 7
(And music bumper information can be found here.)
CLB recently had the pleasure of sitting down with Shubha Ghosh from the University of Wisconsin for a mini-podcast to talk about his recent book, Identity, Invention, and the Culture of Personalized Medicine Patenting. You can hear the mini-podcast here:
Mini-Podcast with Shubha Ghosh
Today’s oral arguments in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics were wide-ranging–and often-times confusing. Almost all of the Justices seemed struggled with basic principles of laboratory genetics, and several seemed hung up on various points of basic patent law. Nonetheless, Myriad’s composition claims–that is, gene patent–claims seem in jeopardy. Whether that jeopardy will translate into five or more votes, however, remains to be seen. Read the rest of this entry »
CLB recently had the pleasure of sitting down with Andrew Torrance from the University of Kansas for a mini-podcast to talk about law and the biosciences. You can hear it here:
Mini-Podcast with Andrew Torrance
On February 10, 2013, Nature Medicine published an article, which discloses that the partially disabled cowpox virus, known as JX-594, has been shown to combat cancer. Scientists have manipulated the vaccinia virus by removing the self-replicating gene and inserting another gene that helps recruit immune cells to cancerous tumors, thereby creating the engineered virus JX-594. Read the rest of this entry »
As a coda to our Law and the Biosciences workshop this year, we have mini-podcasts from our last three speakers: Carl Elliot from the University of Minnesota, Alta Charo of the University of Wisconsin, and Nita Farahany of Duke University. You can find them here:
Mini-Podcast with Carl Elliot
Mini-Podcast with Alta Charo
Mini-Podcast with Nita Farahany
“Brain Research Through Advancing Innovative Technologies” will be the subject of over $100 million in federal investment. DARPA will contribute $50 million, NIH $40 million, and NSF $20 million. They will partner with the Allen Institute ($60 million), Kavli Foundation ($4 million), Salk Institute ($28 million), and Howard Hughes Medical Institute ($30 million). It’s not clear what all these dollar figures really mean, but it almost certainly beats a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
BRAIN is to be led by two prominent neuroscientists: Bill Newsome at Stanford (great scientist, good guy) and Cori Bargmann at Rockefeller University (don’t know her, though know her name).
BRAIN is to have an ethics component, to be handled (initially?) by the President making requests to the President’s Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (PCSBI). PCSBI has at least two members were versed in neuroethics and law and neuroscience: Nita Farahany and Jonathan Moreno. In the long run I think any one general bioethics commission won’t prove adequate – I’d prefer “let a hundred flowers bloom,” though that requires water, fertilizer, and (of course) money for those flowers. But this is astart.
Here’s the White House announcement: White House.
Here’s a useful NY TImes article about the project: NYT.
How important this will turn out to be, of course, remains to be seen. It is not a commitment at the level of the Human Genome Project, but there doesn’t seem to be the same kind of target available as there was for the HGP. I’m optimistic – but that’s probably just my brain talking.
CORRECTIONS MADE: I not only misspelled Dr. Bargmann’s name, but I placed her at the wrong university in Manhattan – she is at Rockefeller University.
The CLB’s own Jacob Sherkow has a great piece on The Yale Law Journal Online analyzing a little-noticed, but potentially very significant, aspect of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mayo v. Prometheus:
The Mayo Court’s novel test for patent eligibility—whether or not an invention involves “well-understood, routine, conventional activity, previously engaged in by researchers in the field”—focuses on how an invention is accomplished rather than what an invention is. That concern with the method of invention poses several normative, statutory, and administrative difficulties. Taken seriously, the “how” requirement will likely have broad effects across all levels of patent practice.
You can find the article here. It’s well worth the read.