Page 129 - 30917_ASHG_Complete

This is a SEO version of 30917_ASHG_Complete. Click here to view full version

« Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page »
Thursday, October 13
SESSION 43 – Plenary Debate Session: Current and
Emerging Sequencing Technologies: Changing the
Practice of Medical Genetics
Room 210, Level 2, Convention Center
Han G. Brunner, Univ. of Nijmegen,
: Michael Hayden, Ctr. for Molecular Medicine
and Therapeutics, Canada; Joris A. Veltman, Univ. of
Nijmegen, Netherlands; Radoje Drmanac, Complete
Genomics, USA; Segolene M. Ayme, INSERM, France;
Louanne Hudgins, Stanford Univ., USA; Ming Qi,
Zhejiang Univ. Med. School, China.
The following statements will be briefly discussed by
the panelists (in favor or against), and then the
audience will be invited to join the discussion.
Statement 1: Targeted sequencing will remain the
norm for diagnostic medical genetics because whole-
exome or whole-genome sequencing will yield an
excess of information that is useless, uninterpretable,
or possibly damaging to the patient.
Statement 2: Personal genome sequencing creates an
unacceptable risk to the privacy of people.
Statement 3: Cytogenetics will cease to be.
Sequencing is the only future technology in diagnostic
Statement 4: Personal genomes will become
incorporated in the standard of care for all of
medicine. Therefore, medical genetics will disappear
as a separate specialty.
Cameras and all other recording devices are
strictly prohibited
in all session rooms. Thank you for your cooperati
Friday, October 14
SESSION 44 – Plenary Debate Session: Owning the
Genome: The Patenting and Licensing of Genes and
Their Impact on Medical Genetics
Room 210, Level 2, Convention Center
James P. Evans, Univ. of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, USA; Jonathan S. Berg, Univ. of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
Approximately 20% of the human genome is patent
but the area of genetic intellectual property is in a
state of considerable flux. Recent court decisions
create an uncertain environment for the use of many
human genes in diagnosis and medical care. While t
protection of intellectual property is critical to
encourage innovation, there exist significant concer
about the legitimacy of gene patents and their
potential for adverse impact on patient care. Does t
patenting and licensing of genes help or hinder the
development of genetic discoveries and their
translation into medical practice? What patenting an
licensing models exist that might lead to optimal
translation of genetic testing to patient care? How d
we avoid patent thickets? Finally, how will the
intellectual property landscape affect the use of arra
and whole genome sequencing?
J. S. Berg. Univ. of North Carolin
at Chapel Hill, USA.
An introduction to gene patenting and
licensing: Current landscape and looming
J. P. Evans. Univ. of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, USA.
Gene patenting: An international perspective
G. L. Matthijs. Univ. of Leuven, Belgium.
Are genes really patentable material? The le
perspective on genes as intellectual property.
Gold. McGill Univ., Canada.
Patenting and licensing policy: Avoiding
problems, maximizing potential.
R. Cook-Deegan.
Duke Univ., USA.
A laboratorian’s view of genetic testing
monopolies: Who is the culprit?
D. Ledbetter.
Geisinger Hlth. Syst., Danville, PA, USA.
A judge’s perspective on gene patenting.
Sweet. Southern District, USA District Court, New
York, USA.
Questions and answers.
J. S. Berg. Univ. of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.