Patzke+Project+Hopping

Karin Patzke Experiments in Methods January 31, 2013 **__Memo Two: Project Hopping__**

//Concern:// Adjudication of //American Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office.// //General Topic//: metaphors (and constructions) of property in genetics
 * Topical Area #1:**

__Data Sets__ – Court documents (rulings, transcripts, //amicus// briefs). Patents (though I’m only very briefly delving into the language and claims of a few implicated in the case).

__Social Theoretical Questions//://__ How is property (and property rights) invested in the notion of genetic data? What are the consequences of this? How do Judges create knowledge in the court? (Why is it compelling and what does it do out in the world?) In this specific case: How does an additional metaphor/discourse of property change genetic practices in the biotech industry?

__Why Now:__ The case is contemporary. The Supreme Court will review it this year. The link between industry and university research is strongly implicated in this case and has ramifications in how genetic data is understood (and commoditized).

__How Prepared:__ I’ve followed the case since 2011 when it was as the Federal Circuit level. This year (2013) it is on the docket to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. I’m currently (finishing!) writing a paper (with Abby Kinchy’s guidance) concerning the case.

__Bias:__ Myriad Genetics, the co-defendant in the case, has many unsavory business practices. Links between biotech industry research and ‘scholarly’ research at the university are deeply tied together and difficult to tease apart. The intellectual property system is flawed and legislatively has privileged industry and commercial gain over ‘public good’ and access to important research.

__Fields of Work:__ //Scholarly allegiance:// legal scholarship: intellectual property, STS: expertise and genetics //Sites of work//: mostly studying documents and talking with lawyers (not related to the case, but to understand some of the legal maneuvering and terminology)

__Funders:__ I don’t know who funds this type of work.

//Concern:// Clinic Trials as trade secrets to negate the effect of the case described above. //General Topic//: metaphors (and constructions) of property in genetics – continued.
 * Topical Area #2:**

__Data Sets__ – Court documents (rulings, transcripts, //amicus// briefs).

__Social Theoretical Questions//://__ How is intellectual property (IP) protected by biotech industry? How is this different from IP in universities? What are the implications of this discrepancy? What is a ‘clinic trial’ and how might the legal definition of it implicate health care practices? If clinic data is a trade secret (which would limit access to important health data) what are the implications for patients and the larger health care system? What are the consequences of this? How do Judges create knowledge in the court? (Why is it compelling and what does it do out in the world?) In this specific case: How does legal positioning and categorization change genetic practices in the biotech industry and what are the far reaching implications of this?

__Why Now:__ The request for //certiorari// has not been reviewed. And it is speculated that the court will rule on it this year. This request is a direct result of the previous case described because it is believed (by me, at least) that the SCOTUS ruling on the patent case will result in a victory for the plaintiff – i.e., gene sequences are not patentable.

__How Prepared:__ //Prepared:// I’ve followed the initial case since 2011 when it was as the Federal Circuit level. //Not Prepared:// However, I’m unfamiliar with the legal technology of trade secrets and the health care practice of clinical data/trials.

__Bias:__ (same as previous topical area) Myriad Genetics, the co-defendant in the case, has many unsavory business practices. Links between biotech industry research and ‘scholarly’ research at the university are deeply tied together and difficult to tease apart. The intellectual property system is flawed and legislatively has privileged industry and commercial gain over ‘public good’ and access to important research.

__Fields of Work:__ //Scholarly allegiance:// legal scholarship: intellectual property, STS: expertise, genetics, healthcare //Sites of work//: mostly studying documents and talking with lawyers (not related to the case, but to understand some of the legal maneuvering and terminology), possibly interviews with health care researchers

__Funders:__ I don’t know who funds this type of work.

//Concern:// Hydro-fracking in New York (Specifically Caroline and Cortland). //General Topic:­­// The effect(s) of adjudication of municipal ordinances/zoning on hydro-fracking?
 * Topical Area #3:**

__Data Sets__ – Court documents (rulings, transcripts, //amicus// briefs). Municipal Ordinances, city council transcripts, interviews with lawyers, city council members.

__Social Theoretical Questions//://__ How does local governing initiatives interact with state governing? How do citizens’ negotiate/mobilize these interactions? What are the larger implications of industrial zoning? Questions of fuel economy and local v. non-local production (‘in our backyard’ v. ‘over there’) are less formed.

__Why Now:__ The case is contemporary. Dryden and Cortland have both received adjudication in favor of preventive ordinances and Caroline has just enacted ordinances in response to those successful cases. The [|Community Environmental Defense Council] (CEDC) is currently working with other communities to draft such ordinances.

__How Prepared:__ //Prepared:// I used to live in Caroline and monitored the creation of zoning ordinances. I have (very weak) ties to ROUSE (the organization responsible for organizing in Caroline). The CEDC is located in Ithaca, NY (near Caroline) and is responsible for helping to draft many of the municipal ordinances to limit drilling. //Not Prepared//: Hydro-fracking means many different things and I don’t know what most of them are. I’m not familiar with reading these types of documents. My links to the community are superficial only.

__Bias:__Alternative drilling techniques are questionable and not without consequence. However, the fuel based economy we reside in forces citizen to choose irresponsible fuel production either at home or abroad.

__Fields of Work:__ //Scholarly allegiance:// legal scholarship: New York state law, municipal ordinances/zoning, real property, municipal law, state statutes, local governance STS: environment, economics, law //Sites of work//: mostly studying documents and talking with lawyers (both related to the case, and to understand some of the legal maneuvering and terminology), interviews with active citizens and municipality leaders

__Funders:__ I don’t know who funds this type of work. Perhaps linking with other research on hydrofracking and presenting to NSF?