Working out of the Center for Biomedical Ethics, Ann Mills and Patty Tereskerz research ethics and policy in health care. They’re not, as Mills says, “basic scientists.” Rather, they examine how policies and legislation concerning research—specifically biomedical research—affect scientific pursuits. In July they published an article in Nature Biotechnology that questions whether recent suggestions from the National Research Council will actually enhance biotech research. Though we have a hard enough time around here understanding how genes are split, or whatever it is that biotech scientists actually do, we asked Mills and Tereskerz about the policies that could hamper that very sort of research. Here’s some of what they told us.
C-VILLE: So to boil your article down: There have been recommendations from a committee out of the National Research Council that aim at making it easier for people to access each other’s research. Yet, these recommendations might not take into account an act passed by Congress that aims at the same goal.
Ann Mills: That’s essentially correct.
What are the recommendations?
A.M.: Most are directed at the National Institutes of Health encouraging and applauding the NIH’s policy of openness. Now, the recommendation that is sure to draw fire is the recommendation that a specific research exception be tailored specifically to the biotechnology industry. If Congress does something like that, you’ll have every industry under the sun racing for a research exemption tailored specifically for them.
We also think that the May 15 Supreme Court “eBay” decision will have a huge impact. It introduces uncertainty. Historically, once you were found guilty of infringing on an existing patent, it was automatic that you’d be enjoined from manufacturing that product. The Supreme Court said actually, no, it’s not automatic.
The trouble is that with the biotech industry, by introducing that uncertainty, the industry is going to act very defensively.
They’ll be more protective of their research?
A.M.: They’ll try to protect it through more patent acquisition and litigation activities.
What would that mean for scientists and for people who need health care?
A.M.: Research might be directed in terms of patent strategies.
Patty Tereskerz: Ultimately it may hamper the ability to commercialize research in a sense and it may stifle innovation because it will be too complicated to go through this maze. The question is whether some of these legislations and case decisions do what they’re meant to do and enhance technology development and commercialization or do they hamper it.
