Genetic testing for inherited cancer risk changed dramatically when the US Supreme Court handed down unanimous rulings in (2012) and (2013). Those decisions struck down claims to methods based on 'laws of nature' () and DNA molecules corresponding to sequences found in nature (). Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Christopher Coons (D-DE) introduced legislation that would abrogate those decisions and specify narrow statutory exclusions to patent-eligibility in §101 of the US Patent Act. What would be the consequences of doing so? The Supreme Court decisions coincided with changes in how genetic tests were performed, reimbursed and regulated. Multi-gene sequencing supplanted oligo-gene testing as the cost of sequencing dropped 10,000-fold. Payers dramatically changed reimbursement practices. Food and Drug Administration regulation was proposed and remains in prospect. Databases for clinical interpretation made data freely available, augmenting a knowledge commons. The spectacular implosion of Theranos tempered investment in molecular diagnostics. These factors all complicate explanations of why venture capital funding for molecular diagnostics dropped relative to other sectors. Restoring patent-eligibility would put renewed pressure on other patent doctrines, such as obviousness, enablement and written description, that were not raised in the Supreme Court cases.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsad032.].

Researchers are rapidly developing and deploying highly portable MRI technology to conduct field-based research. The new technology will widen access to include new investigators in remote and unconventional settings and will facilitate greater inclusion of rural, economically disadvantaged, and historically underrepresented populations. To address the ethical, legal, and societal issues raised by highly accessible and portable MRI, an interdisciplinary Working Group (WG) engaged in a multi-year structured process of analysis and consensus building, informed by empirical research on the perspectives of experts and the general public. This article presents the WG's consensus recommendations. These recommendations address technology quality control, design and oversight of research, including safety of research participants and others in the scanning environment, engagement of diverse participants, therapeutic misconception, use of artificial intelligence algorithms to acquire and analyze MRI data, data privacy and security, return of results and managing incidental findings, and research participant data access and control.

Anticipation entails contemplating the beneficial and harmful impacts of scientific and technological progress. Anticipation has a long history in science, technology, and innovation policy partly due to future impacts of scientific progress being inescapable. The link between anticipation, an undertheorized concept, and human rights law is yet to be fully explored. This paper links anticipation to the rights to science, a lesser-studied human right codified in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The paper argues that the normative content of the right includes anticipation entitlements and duties. Combining the entitlements and duties with anticipation typologies leads to identifying three forms of anticipation that governments (and, in some cases, scientists) must carry out: beneficial, responsible, and participatory anticipation. The paper concludes by identifying three ways in which further conceptual work can enrich human-rights-based anticipation.

In July 2023, the United States and the European Union introduced the Data Privacy Framework (DPF), introducing the third generation of cross-border data transfer agreements constituting adequacy with respect to personal data transfers under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) between the European Union (EU) and the US. This framework may be used in cross-border healthcare and research relationships, which are highly desirable and increasingly essential to innovative health technology development and health services deployment. A reliable model meeting EU adequacy requirements could enhance the transfer of patient and research participant data. While the DPF might present a familiar terrain for US organizations, it also brings unique challenges. A notable concern is the ability of individual EU Member States to establish individual and additional requirements for health data that are more restrictive than GDPR requirements, which are not anticipated by the DPF. This article highlights the DPF's potential impact on the healthcare and research sectors, finding that the DPF may not provide the degree of lawful health data transfer desirable for healthcare entities. We examine the DPF against a background of existing Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act obligations and other GDPR transfer tools to offer alternatives that can improve the likelihood of reliable, lawful health data transfer between the US and EU.

One of this century's most dramatic scientific developments is the reprogramming of stem cells in order to create self-organizing embryo-like entities, known as stem cell based embryo models (SCBEMs). The science is moving very quickly, but if, as increasingly appears to be the case, scientists are capable of creating entities that are effectively indistinguishable from sperm and egg derived embryos, important legal questions arise. In countries like the UK, where a strict regulatory regime applies to research on embryos, should this be extended to SCBEM research, or would a different regulatory response be appropriate? Drawing on the 1984 Warnock Report, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the latest guidelines from the International Society for Stem Cell Research, this article considers principles for the regulation of the creation and use of SCBEMs.

This paper contributes to the exploration of the potential related to the diligent anticipation of the (imminent) harms and (potential) benefits to humans that scientific innovation engenders to health-related contexts. In particular, it addresses the intersection between the human right to science and health-related data processing, which plays a key role in the production, translation and implementation of biomedical knowledge. The first part of the paper provides a brief recap of the interpretation of the right to science based on Art. 15 (1) (b) of the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (hereafter ICESCR or Covenant) and the resulting obligations for States in the context of health and related data processing. The second part of the paper defines the relevance of the ICESCR for EU Member States and the European Union. In the third part, theses are put forward on how the human right to science and the obligations under Art. 15 (1) (b) ICESCR influence the interpretation and application of the General Data Protection Regulation as secondary EU law. By examining the justifications for using the right to science to interpret EU data protection law and by providing interpretation and application guidance on the main data protection principles in the area of health-related data processing, taking this right into account, the aim is to shape the EU data governance framework to meet the requirements of this human right. In doing so, the paper aims to close the gaps in the interpretation and application of the main rules of EU data protection law. Such standardization in the health-related context can contribute to a coherent interpretation and application of existing rules by referring to this emerging human right. Against this background, the paper identifies governance measures that the EU legislator could take to guide the processing of health-related data in line with the requirements of the right to science.

The affordability of publicly funded medicines has been a longstanding concern. In 2023, the Biden administration took several steps on this front, including incorporation of a price constraint in an agreement between the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to develop a new COVID-19 monoclonal antibody. The agreement included a 'Most Favored Nation' (MFN) clause in which Regeneron agreed that the US commercial list price of certain products developed using BARDA funding would not exceed their retail price in comparable global markets. The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) included similar language in subsequent agreements, with a promise that this would become a new standard. Even beyond the preparedness context, government funders and purchasers might consider incorporating similar clauses in future contracts, especially given that the Regeneron agreement and its progeny have been praised as 'groundbreaking.' Yet a closer look reveals cause for skepticism. Regeneron's MFN clause includes several loopholes related to covered purchasers and reference countries, prices, and conditions. We describe agreement terms that can make the difference between legally meaningful price constraints and mere window dressing. Our critical analysis offers important lessons for future efforts to improve the affordability of medical technology developed with public funds.

Although national criminal offender DNA databases (NCODDs) including autosomal short tandem repeats (STRs) have been a successful tool to identify criminals for decades in many countries, yet there are many criminal cases they cannot solve. In cases with mixed male-female samples, particularly sexual assault, expanding NCODDs with Y-chromosomal STR (Y-STR) profiles allows database matching in the absence of autosomal STR profiles. Although Y-STR matches are not individual-specific, this can be largely overcome with rapidly mutating Y-STRs (RM Y-STR) allowing separation of paternally related men. Expanding NCODDs with Y-STR profiles is also beneficial for law enforcement in cases without known suspects via familial searching. Expanding NCODDs with Y-STR profiles may raise concerns about genetic privacy and fundamental human rights. A legal analysis of the European Convention on Human Rights revealed that when primarily for reidentifying convicted sex offenders, it would be in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, while a generalized approach primarily for familial searching and involving all types of offenders may not. This paper aims to stimulate a debate among various stakeholders regarding the benefits and risks of expanding NCODDs with Y-STR profiles that in some countries has already been practically implemented.

Biologics are playing an increasingly important role in health care globally but are placing a substantial burden on payers. The development of biosimilars-drugs that are highly similar to and have no clinically meaningful differences from originator biologics-is critical to improving the affordability and accessibility of these medications. Medicines regulators, however, have had varied success with biosimilars to date. We examined agency guidance documents, peer-reviewed articles, and gray literature related to biosimilars in Australia, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States to evaluate variations in the approaches to biosimilar approval taken by their respective medicines regulators. We found that the medicines regulators take similar approaches to biosimilar approvals, but that differences in their policies and their jurisdiction's laws regarding testing requirements, indication extrapolation, exclusivities, and substitution may contribute to the varied successes of biosimilars observed. Policies supportive of product-specific guidance, extrapolation, shorter exclusivity periods, and substitution were correlated with greater success in biosimilar approval and uptake. As medicines regulators work to promote biosimilars, understanding the impact of these laws and policies is crucial. Reforms consistent with these policies can create regulatory environments more supportive of biosimilar approvals, promoting access to affordable biologics for patients globally.

The regulation of neurotechnologies for non-medical purposes such as enhancement, gaming, or well-being is a topic of ongoing controversy. Without much attention, the European Union addressed it by two implementing regulations to the Medical Device Regulation (MDR) for non-invasive brain stimulation devices, passed in December 2022. This paper presents main aspect of these regulations and the conditions for placing non-medical neurodevices on the EU market, especially the risk threshold and the requirement for pre-market certification. It also provides a first critical comment on selected aspects and the unclear situation regarding research only devices which has alarmed the European neurotechnology sector.

Vaccines are one component to the public health strategies to alleviate the COVID-19 pandemic. Hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines in the United States has been problematic, which is not surprising given increasing overall vaccine hesitancy in recent decades. Most vaccines are administered during childhood years. Consequently, understanding hesitancy toward administration of vaccines in this age group may provide insight into possible interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy. The present study analyzed a subset of over 130,000 public comments posted in response to a notice of meeting of the vaccine advisory group to the Food and Drug Administration. The meeting addressed whether to recommend Emergency Use Authorization ('EUA') of the COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5-11. The results of the study demonstrate that most comments opposed EUA and these comments were associated with statements that indicated misperceptions of risk. Findings provide interesting insights regarding the role of public comments generally but also suggest that the public participation process in notice and comment can be modified to serve as an intervention to align individual perceptions of risk more closely with evidence-based assessment of risk. In addition, the findings provide opportunities to consider strategies for public health messaging.

Artificial Amnion and Placenta Technology (AAPT)-sometimes referred to as 'Artificial Womb Technology'-could provide an extracorporeal alternative to bodily gestations, allowing a fetus delivered prematurely from the human uterus to continue development while maintaining fetal physiology. As AAPT moves nearer to being used in humans, important ethical and legal questions remain unanswered. In this paper, we explore how the death of the entity sustained by AAPT would be characterized in law. This question matters, as legal ambiguity in this area has the potential to compound uncertainty and the suffering of newly bereaved parent(s). We first identify the existing criteria used to delineate the legal characterization of death, which occurs before birth or during the immediate neonatal period in England and Wales. We then demonstrate that attempting to apply these in the context of AAPT gives rise to a number of challenges, which make it impossible to reach a definitive conclusion as to the nature of death in AAPT using the current legal framework. In doing so, we demonstrate that the current legal framework in England and Wales may be unable to adequately capture the situation of an entity being sustained by AAPT.

Competition between life science companies is critical to ensure innovative therapies are efficiently developed. Anticompetitive behavior may harm scientific progress and, ultimately, patients. One well-established category of anticompetitive behavior is the 'interlocking directorate'. It is illegal for companies' directors to 'interlock' by also serving on the boards of competitors. We evaluated overlaps in the board membership of 2,241 public life science companies since 2000. We show that a robust network of interlocking companies is present among these firms. At any given time, 10-20 percent of board members are interlocked; the number of interlocks has more than doubled in the last two decades. Over half of these interlocked firms report over $5 million in historical revenue, exceeding a legal threshold that makes an interlocking directorate a violation of antitrust law. Those interlocks are only illegal if the companies compete, even in part. Using the disease categories for which companies have sponsored clinical trials, we discover that a few markets are responsible for a large fraction of interlocks. We show that in dozens of cases, companies share directors with the very firms they identify as their biggest competitive threats. We provide a data-driven roadmap for policymakers, regulators, and companies to further investigate the contribution of anticompetitive behavior to increased healthcare costs and to enforce the law against illegal interlocks between firms.

This article provides an early analysis of the potential for creating future biosimilar competition for cell and gene therapies (CGTs) to lower prices and improve patient access, building on a unique set of interviews with relevant experts. Our discussion addressed regulatory, manufacturing, intellectual property, and market size challenges. Due to CGTs' complexity, meeting the regulatory requirement of 'high similarity with no clinically meaningful differences' will be difficult. Gene therapies are likely better candidates for biosimilar development than cell therapies. Biosimilarity should be met when gene therapy biosimilars contain the same genetic sequence as a reference product, and the variability in the vector meets the high similarity standard. Manufacturing challenges, including the lack of standardized platforms, high production costs, and complexity, pose significant obstacles. It may also be important to demonstrate biosimilarity within the manufacturing process. Intellectual property barriers, specifically patenting, trade secrecy, and regulatory exclusivity, could hinder biosimilars' ability to gain market share, although recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the breadth of patent claims could ease barriers to future CGT competition, including from biosimilars. Finally, inadequate market sizes might create hurdles, especially for curative treatments, as patient pools shrink following treatment by the reference CGT.

With the Supreme Court's decision in , reproductive research now joins other sensitive research topics that present legal risks to research participants, underscoring the role of Certificates in protecting them. Yet, stakeholders question whether Certificates will hold up in court. In this article, we describe the essential arguments supporting Congress's regulation of biomedical research and, thus, Certificates, under its authority to regulate interstate commerce. Our analysis should reassure researchers and Institutional review boards who rely on Certificates to protect the confidentiality of research participants' data. We conclude with recommendations for stakeholders based on our analysis.

Bedside manufacturing is having a revival in healthcare, with a promise to revolutionize personalized medicine through on-site drug production. While this concept holds considerable promise, it also encounters a complex web of legal uncertainties. The current regulatory framework in Switzerland and the EU, which includes the Swiss Therapeutic Products Act and the EU directives, regulations, and guidelines, fails to adequately address its distinct challenges. Rising new technologies underscore the urgent need for regulatory reform. These technologies highlight the pressing demand for comprehensive legal frameworks that can reconcile the rapid pace of innovation with the imperatives of patient safety and product efficacy. Legal concerns extend beyond mere compliance; they encapsulate quality assurance, and liability in cases of human error. This study outlines the call for a recalibrated legal landscape that prioritizes patient-centered care while fostering the growth of bedside manufacturing. It is crucial for the legal system to evolve in tandem with these medical advancements, ensuring a secure, efficacious, and equitable integration of bedside manufacturing into healthcare.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union, which became applicable in 2018, contains a new accountability principle. Under this principle, controllers (ie parties determining the purposes and the means of the processing of personal data) are responsible for ensuring and demonstrating the overall compliance with the GDPR. However, interpretive uncertainties of the GDPR mean that controllers must exercise considerable judgement in designing and implementing an appropriate compliance strategy, making GDPR compliance both complex and resource-intensive. In this article, we provide conceptual clarity around GDPR compliance with respect to one core aspect of the law: the determination and relevance of the purpose of personal data processing. We derive from the GDPR's text concrete requirements for purpose specification, which we subsequently apply to the area of secondary use of personal data for scientific research. We offer guidance for correctly specifying purposes of data processing under different research scenarios. To illustrate the practical necessity of purpose specification for GDPR compliance, we then show how our proposed approach can enable controllers to meet their compliance obligations, using the example of the overarching GDPR principle of lawfulness to highlight the relevance of purpose specification for the identification of a suitable legal basis.

State militaries have strong interests in developing enhanced warfighters: taking otherwise healthy service personnel (soldiers, marines, pilots, etc.) and pushing their biological, physiological, and cognitive capacities beyond their individual statistical or baseline norm. However, the ethical and regulatory challenges of justifying research into these kinds of interventions to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of enhancements in the military has not been well explored. In this paper, we offer, in the context of the US Common Rule and Institutional Review Board framework, potential justifications for justifying research into enhancing warfighters on the grounds of (i) individual and group risk reduction; (ii) protection of third parties such as civilians; and (iii) military effectiveness.