Search

The population of the world has recently passed the 7 billion milestone and as the cost of human genome sequencing is rapidly declining, sequence data of billions of people should be accessible much sooner than anyone would have predicted 10 years ago. This will form the basis of personalised medicine. However it is still not clear, even in principle, whether these data, combined with data of the expression of one's genome in various cells and tissues relevant to different diseases, could be used effectively in clinical medicine and healthcare, or in predicting responses to different therapies. Therefore this is an important issue which needs to be addressed before more resources are wasted on less than informative studies and surveys simply because technologies exist. As a typical example, we have selected and summarise here key studies from the biomedical literature that focus on gene expression profiling of the response to biologic therapies in peripheral blood and biopsy samples in autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, spondylarthropathy, inflammatory bowel diseases and psoriasis. We also present the state of the biotechnology market from a European perspective, discuss how spin-offs leverage the power of genomic technologies and describe how they might contribute to personalised medicine. As ethical, legal and social issues are essential in the area of genomics, we analysed these aspects and present here the European situation with a special focus on Hungary. We propose that the synergy of these three issues: pharmacogenomics, biotechnology and regulatory issues should be considered a triad necessary to succeed in personalised medicine., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Genomic research is challenging the tradition of informed consent. Genomic researchers in the USA, Canada and parts of Europe are encouraged to use informed consent to address the prospect of disclosing individual research results (IRRs) to study participants. In the USA, no national policy exists to direct this use of informed consent, and it is unclear how local institutional review boards (IRBs) may want researchers to respond., Objective and Methods: To explore publicly accessible IRB websites for guidance in this area, using summative content analysis., Findings: Three types of research results were addressed in 45 informed consent templates and instructions from 20 IRBs based at centres conducting genomic research: (1) IRRs in general, (2) incidental findings (IFs) and (3) a broad and unspecified category of 'significant new findings' (SNFs). IRRs were more frequently referenced than IFs or SNFs. Most documents stated that access to IRRs would not be an option for research participants. These non-disclosure statements were found to coexist in some documents with statements that SNFs would be disclosed to participants if related to their willingness to participate in research. The median readability of template language on IRRs, IFs and SNFs exceeded a ninth-grade level., Conclusion: IRB guidance may downplay the possibility of IFs and contain conflicting messages on IRR non-disclosure and SNF disclosure. IRBs may need to clarify why separate IRR and SNF language should appear in the same consent document. The extent of these issues, nationally and internationally, needs to be determined.

Recent changes in the European legislation of chemicals suggest an urgent need for introduction of novel, alternative methods for testing chemical substances. Such possibility is offered by toxicogenomics--a scientific discipline combining knowledge from the field of toxicology, i.e., a science investigating the properties of toxic agents and the negative effects these agents exert on health and environment, with genomics, i.e., a science investigating the structure and function of genomes. New research strategies within the field of toxicology (transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics) offer conditions to assess the hazards associated with the effects of chemicals with both established and suspected toxic potentials.

The paper reconstructs the governance of genomics by sketching the main features, modes of operation and tactics of the emerging genomics apparatus. Genomic governance in the 20th century is characterized by the simultaneous operation of a process of the stabilization of knowledge regimes, in particular via patenting. Furthermore, we observe a heterogenization and globalization of the actors and knowledge creating systems in genomics governance. A variety of different mechanisms and strategies of governance are mobilized simultaneously. The transition of governing via risk to governance by uncertainty is another important feature of contemporary genomics governance. The implications of these trends for the regulation of genomics are considerable and might lead to the emergence of new patterns and spaces of conflict and controversy. The governance of genomics in the 21st century could become a more complex challenge than currently anticipated by many policy makers and the scientific community.

The social controversies that have surrounded human cloning and the use of embryos for research purposes might create unique patent issues for stem cell researchers. Policy makers should learn from the legal and ethical concerns associated with human gene patents and develop coherent patent policies that recognize and clearly address emerging social controversies.

Recently there have been some important developments with respect to the patentability of inventions in the field of structural genomics. The leaders of the European Patent Office (EPO), Japan Patent Office (JPO) and the United States Patent Office (USPTO) came together for a trilateral meeting to conduct a comparative study on protein 3-dimensional (3-D) structure related claims in an effort to come to a mutual understanding about the examination of such inventions. The three patent offices were presented with eight different cases: 1) 3-D structural data of a protein per se; 2) computer-readable storage medium encoded with structural data of a protein; 3) protein defined by its tertiary structure; 4) crystals of known proteins; 5) binding pockets and protein domains; 6) and 7) are both directed to in silico screening methods directed to a specific protein; and 8) pharmacophores. The preliminary conclusions reached at the trilateral meeting provide clarity regarding the types of inventions that may be patentable given a specific set of scientific facts in a patent application. Therefore, the guidance provided by this study will help inventors, attorneys and other patent practitioners who file for patent protection on structural genomics-based inventions both here and abroad comply with the patentability requirements of each office.

As governments in the US and Europe contemplate legislation that would divert funding of some genomics-driven research to Offices of Homeland Security and the like, and that would restrict the freedom of biologists to publish and share some of their data, we of the scientific community are facing a crisis, brought on by fears of bioterrorism, that eerily mirrors the early days of recombinant DNA research.