Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Framing Ethical Concerns and Attitudes towards Human Gene Patents in the Chinese Press

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the representations of human gene patents in Chinese newspapers. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of news articles published between 2006 and 2017 to identify the major themes in media coverage, ethical considerations, perceptions of risks and benefits, and attitudes towards the patentability of human genes. The results show that two key ethical concerns were expressed by journalists: (1) that it is morally wrong to own or patent human genes and (2) that gene patents could potentially impede patients’ access to healthcare services. Nonetheless, the press coverage has tended to be largely favorable (57.8%), rather than opposed (17.8%) to human gene patenting. There were no normative claims that human genes should not be patentable in China, which indicates a generally positive attitude towards patentability in media discourse. Most articles that expressed criticism toward gene patenting discussed challenges in other countries, with significant attention given to the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in the Myriad case that invalidated Myriad Genetics’ patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Overall, the newspapers were uncritical of the Chinese gene patenting regime. News reporting on the issue was highly suggestive of a strong pro-commercialization stance, although some discussions emphasized potential risks over benefits. Our analysis highlights the need for balanced media reporting on human gene patents in China and a top-down approach to engage the public in substantive discussions on the ethical and societal implications of the existing patent regime.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The dataset used and/or analyzed during the current study are available in Zenodo. (doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2595240).

Abbreviations

BRCA 1:

Breast cancer gene 1

BRCA2:

Breast cancer gene 2

cDNA:

Complementary deoxyribonucleic acid

DNA:

Deoxyribonucleic acid

CHEO:

Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario

LQTS:

Long QT syndrome

ACLU:

American Civil Liberties Union

References

  • Andrews, Lori B., and Jordan Paradise. 2005. Gene patents: the need for bioethics scrutiny and legal change. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law, and Ethics 5 (1): 403–412. Accessed 10 July 2020. https://digitayjhple/yjhple/vol5/iss1/13.

  • Ariosa Diagnostics v Sequenom. 2015. 788 F.3d 1371.

  • Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics. 2013. 569 US 12–398.

  • Bonter, Katherine L., Carmela De Luca, and Christi J. Guerrini. 2018. Gene patents in Canada: Is there a new legal landscape? Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy 22: 149–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-017-0313-9.

  • Bubela, Tania, and Tim Caulfield. 2004. Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal 170 (9): 1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.1030762.

  • Catalan-Matamoros, Daniel, and Carmen Peñafiel-Saiz. 2017. The use of traditional media for public communication about medicines: a systematic review of characteristics and outcomes. Health Communication 34: 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1405485.

  • Caulfield, Timothy. 2004. Biotechnology and the popular press: hype and the selling of science. Trends in Biotechnology 22 (7): 337–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/.tibtech.2004.03.014.

  • Caulfield, Timothy, Tania Bubela, and C.J. Murdoch. 2007. Myriad and the mass media: the covering of a gene patent controversy. Genetics in Medicine 9 (12): 850–855. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e31815bf965.

  • Chandrasekharan, Subhashini, and Melissa Fiffer. 2010. Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for hearing loss. Genetics in Medicine 12: S171–S193. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181d7b053.

  • Chapman, Simon, Abby Haynes, Gemma Derrick, Heidi Sturk, Wayne D. Hall, and Alexis St. George. 2014. Reaching “an audience that you would never dream of speaking to”: influential public health researchers’ views on the role of news media in influencing policy and public understanding. Journal of Health Communication 19 (2): 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811327.

  • Cyranoski, David. 2016. China embraces precision medicine on a massive scale. Nature 529 (7584): 9–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/529009a.

  • D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics. 2015. HCA: 35.

  • Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. 30.7.1998, L213/13.

  • Du, Li. 2018. Patenting human genes: Chinese academic articles’ portrayal of gene patents. BMC Medical Ethics 19: 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s1290-018-0271-8.

  • Du, Li, and Christan Rachul. 2012. Chinese newspaper coverage of genetically modified organisms. BMC Public Health 12: 326. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-326.

  • Du, Li, Kalina Kamenova, and Timothy Caulfield. 2015. The gene patent controversy on Twitter: a case study of Twitter users’ responses to the CHEO lawsuit against long QT gene patents. BMC Medical Ethics 16: 55. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0049-1.

  • Entman, Robert M. 1993. Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4): 51–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

  • Evans, James P., and Michael S. Watson. 2015. Genetic testing and FDA regulation: overregulation threatens the emergence of genomic medicine. JAMA 313 (7): 669–670. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.18145.

  • Gauntlett, D. 2004. Ten things wrong with the “Effects Model.”. In Media studies: the essential resource,ed. P. Rayner, P. Wall, and S. Kruger, 112. London: Routledge.

  • Geller, Gaul, Barbara A. Bernhardt, and Neil A. Holtzman. 2002. The media and public reaction to genetic research. JAMA 287 (6): 773. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.287.6.773-JMS0213-3-1.

  • Genomeweb. 2019. Illumina wins NIPT infringement suit against Roche’s Arisoa Diagnostics. GenomeWeb, 17 June 2019. https://www.genomeweb.com/sequencing/illumina-wins-nipt-infringement-suit-against-roches-ariosa-diagnostics#.XtZ_Y54zb6A. Accessed 29 June 2020.

  • Gold, E. Richard, and Julia Carbone. 2010. Myriad genetics: In the eye of the policy storm. Genetics in Medicine. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1260098.

  • Hawkins, Naomi. 2011. The impact of human gene patents on genetic testing in the United Kingdom. Genetics in Medicine 13 (4): 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181fc50bc.

  • Hawkins, Naomi, Dianne Nicol, Subhashini Chandrasekaran, and Robert Cook-Deegan. 2019. The continuing saga of patents and non-invasive prenatal testing. Prenatal Diagnosis 39 (6): 441–447. https://doi.org/10.1002/pd.5450.

  • Illumina v Ariosa Diagnostics. 2020. No. 2019–1419 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).

  • Information of the Database. 2019. 中国学术期刊(光盘版). http://kns.cnki.net/kns/brief/result.aspx?dbprefix=CCND. Accessed 29 June 2020.

  • Jamison, Molly. 2015. Patent harmonization in biotechnology: towards international reconciliation of the gene patent debate. Chicago Journal of International Law 15: 688–720. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol15/iss2/9. Accessed 10 July 2020.

  • Kamenova, Kalina, Amir Reshef, and Timothy Caulfield. 2014. Angelina Jolie’s faulty gene: newspaper coverage of a celebrity’s preventive bilateral mastectomy in Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Genetics in Medicine 16: 522–528. https://doi.org/10.1038/gim.2013.199.

  • Kers, Jannigje, Elco Van Burg, Tom Stoop, and Martina C. Cornel. 2014. Trends in genetic patent applications: the commercialization of academic intellectual property. European Journal of Human Genetics 22: 1155–1159. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejhg.2013.305.

  • Kornreich, Yoel, Ilan Vertinsky, and Pitman B. Potter. 2012. Consultation and deliberation in China: the making of China’s health-care reform. The China Journal 68: 176–203. https://doi.org/10.1086/666583.

  • Landis, J. Richard, and Gary G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 33 (1): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

  • Li, Y. 2009. 基因产业:好风还需凭借力 (“Gene industry: good wind depends on borrowing,” translated by authors). Medical Economics News.

  • Li, Bei, Hongyan Bao, and Xiaojun Lan. 2016. 基于专利地图的中美肿瘤基因诊断技术竞争力分析 (“Analysis of the competitiveness of cancer gene diagnosis technology between China and the United States based on the patent map,” translated by authors). China Medical Biotechnology 11: 82–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Xiaochun, and Haijun Ren. 2013. 美国最高法院再审基因专利案 (“The US supreme court reviewed the gene patent case,” translated by authors). Xinhua Daily Telegraph.

  • Liu, Deming. 2005. Now the wolf has indeed come! Perspective on the patent protection of biotechnology inventions in China. American Journal of Comparative Law 53: 207–260. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/53.1.207

  • Ma, Xiaohua. 2009. 量高质低 我国基因工程遭遇专利尴尬 (“High quantity while low-quality Chinese bio-engineering is facing patent embarrassment,” translated by authors). Chinese Business News.

  • McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990.

  • Ministry of Science and Technology of P.R. China. 2016. 科技部关于发布国家重点研发计划精准医学研究等重点专项2016年度项目申报指南的通知 (“Notice of the Ministry of Science and Technology on the issuance of 2016 annual project application guide for national key R & D plan on precision medicine research,” translated by authors). http://www.most.gov.cn/tztg/201603/t20160308_124542.htm. Accessed 29 June 2020.

  • Montgomery, Rachel. 2017. Illumina wins NIPT patent case in UK High Court. https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_96274. Accessed 29 June 2020.

  • Nicol, Dianne, Rochelle C. Dreyfuss, E. Richard Gold, Wei Li, John Liddicoat, and Geertrui Van Overwalle. 2019. International divergence in gene patenting. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 20: 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genom-083118-015112.

  • Nisbet, Matthew C., Dominique Brossard, and Adrianne Kroepsch. 2003. Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (2): 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047.

  • Patent Law of People’s Republic of China. 2008. http://www.sipo.gov.cn/zcfg/zcfgflfg/flfgzl/fl_zl/1063508.htm. Accessed 29 June 2020.

  • Salter, Brian. 2009. China, globalization and health biotechnology innovation: Venture capital and the adaptive state. East Asian Science, Technology and Society 3 (4): 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1215/s12280-009-9090-9.

  • Scheufele, Dietram A. 1999. Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication 49 (1): 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02784.x.

  • Simoncelli, Tania, and Sandra S. Park. 2015. Making the case against gene patents. Perspectives on Science 23 (1): 106–145. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00161.

  • State Intellectual Property Office of the P. R. China. 2010. Guidelines for Patent Examination 2010. Beijing: Intellectual Property Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Zhaoxuan. 2009. 基因研究应瞄准市场 产业化困局待解 (“Genetic research should target market and dilemma in industrialization should be solved” translated by authors). China high tech Industry Bulletin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Ruiyan, Qin Cao, Qiuwei Zhao, and Yin Li. 2018. Bioindustry in China: an overview and perspective. Nature Biotechnology 40 (Part A): 46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.08.002.

  • Zarzeczny, Amy, Christan Rachul, Matthew Nisbet, and Timothy Caulfield. 2010. Stem cell clinics in the news. Nature Biotechnology 28: 1243–1246. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1210-1243b.

  • Zhao, Feifei, Yan Chen, Siqi Ge, Xinwei Yu, Shuang Shao, Michael Black, et al. 2014. A quantitative analysis of the mass media coverage of genomics medicine in China: a call for science journalism in the developing world. OMICS 18 (4): 222–230. https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2013.0108.

Download references

Funding

This research was funded by the University of Macau multi-year research grant–MYRG2018-00074-FLL and the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China under the project: Research on Precision Medicine Ethics, Policy, and Legal Framework (Grant: 2017YFC0910100).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Macau, Taipa, Macau SAR

    Li Du & Sijie Lin

  2. C&C Lawyers & Notaries, Macau, Macau SAR

    Sijie Lin

  3. Canadian Institute for Genomics and Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Kalina Kamenova

Authors
  1. Li Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sijie Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kalina Kamenova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LD designed the study and wrote the manuscript. SJL collected and analyzed the data. KK wrote and substantially revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li Du.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Code Availability

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Du, L., Lin, S. & Kamenova, K. Framing Ethical Concerns and Attitudes towards Human Gene Patents in the Chinese Press. ABR 12, 307–323 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00136-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00136-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation