Patzke+Method+Empirical+Theory

Karin Patzke

Memo: Methodological, Empirical, Theoretical and Practical Contributions
This proposed study focuses on intellectual property and human gene sequencing in both genetics and law. Data collected through interviews with geneticists and other practitioners in the field will be presented to understand how legal constructions of property are established in laboratory work. Honing in on the US case, //AMP v. USPTO//, as well as previous legal rulings such as //Prometheus v. Mayo//, //Metabolite,// and //LabCorp//, this work documents the discourse of property illustrated by legal technologies such as rulings, dissents, and fictions.
 * Methodological**

Focusing in on legal controversies and policy in the United States, this study contributes to the empirical record in a number of ways. First, it will expand the boundaries of legal analysis to scientific research and representation in the law. Second, it will provide examples and methods for such work. Third, it will provide data on the way knowledge is created (and interpreted) in the US legal system. Finally, this system will outline a ‘trail’ of discourse, presenting the ways in which knowledge of genes is ‘translated’ and implemented in the law.
 * Empirical**

This study builds on and expands the conceptual framework of co-production by focusing on discourse analysis as a means to ‘see’ how negotiations between law, policy, economics and science take place. In presenting a cohesive site of study, one begins to see network structures (through discourse, interaction, and shared affiliation) that science (genetics) and law operate.
 * Conceptual/Theoretical**

//General impact//: By focusing on the ways in which adjudication influences laboratory practices, this project unveils complicated legal and scientific work to recognize the interdisciplinary practices of genetics. //Policy Impact:// Highlighting the interaction of legal adjudication and laboratory work allows for a transparent view of the direct impact the latter has on the former. As controversies such as life patents play out in both the court room and the laboratory, it is my intent to provide a ‘road map’ of how policy reform in patent law might account for established practices in genetics.
 * Practical/Broader Impacts**

Old stuff: (cause I was confused and tired): Focusing in on legal controversies and policy in the United States, this study contributes to the ongoing (historical? sociological?) understanding of how genetics as a discipline negotiates its own disciplinary practices according to (social?) values….. (genes are property now because licensing equals profit which is good)…
 * If anyone can help me state this in a better way, I’d appreciate it!