NEW YORK, June 14, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- Below are experts from the ProfNet network that are available to discuss timely issues in your coverage area. If you are interested in interviewing any of the experts, please contact them via the contact information at the end of the listing. To receive these updates by email, send a note to profnet@profnet.com with the industries you cover, and we'll add you to the appropriate edition.

If you are in need of additional experts, you can also submit a query to the hundreds of thousands of experts in our network. You can filter your request by institution type and geographic location to get the most targeted responses. The best part? It's free! Just fill out the query form to get started.

If you have any questions or need assistance with any aspect of ProfNet, please drop us a note at profnet@profnet.com.

EXPERT ALERTS

MEDIA JOBS

OTHER NEWS & RESOURCES

EXPERT ALERTS:

Supreme Court Decision on Human Gene Patents Lori Andrews Professor IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law "The Supreme Court has liberated human genes. This decision is great news for patients, doctors, and scientific researchers. Half of geneticists were impeded in their research by gene patents. Now they can begin the search for cures." In Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that human genes were not patentable since they are products of nature and not inventions. Andrews filed amicus briefs in the trial court, appellate court and the U.S. Supreme Court representing medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Society of Human Genetics and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She argued that a patent on genes was not only legally inappropriate, but also a threat to public health. For the past 10 years, Andrews has studied the impact of gene patents on health care and scientific research, receiving grants from the federal Department of Energy Human Genome Project and from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Expert Contact: landrews@kentlaw.iit.edu Media Contact: Gwendolyn Osborne, gosborne@kentlaw.iit.edu

SCOTUS Gene Patent Case Barbara Evans Co-director, Health Law & Policy Institute University of Houston Law Center "The decision makes sense, but it is a major change that has the potential to upset business expectations of biotech firms that have structured their businesses on the assumption that genes are patentable. One hears dire forecasts that invalidating gene patents will put a halt to biotechnology investment and innovation. Frankly, those fears seem overblown." Evans is available to explain the issues involved in the case, as well as what it means for research companies and the average citizen after the U.S. Supreme ruled that companies cannot patent human genes. Media Contact: Carrie Criado, cacriado@central.uh.edu

Unanimous Supreme Court Decision on Patent Case Sapna Kumar Assistant Professor of Law University of Houston Law Center "We expected there to be a divided opinion from the Supreme Court on this issue. At oral argument, there wasn't a consensus regarding how to promote innovation while prohibiting something from nature to be patented. Instead, the Supreme Court issued a decisive opinion, where it unanimously held that isolated DNA is not to be patentable under the Patent Act. I think that several of us were expecting the court to use a fuzzy balancing test instead." Kumar is available to speak about the Supreme Court's decision in the gene patent case. Media Contact: John T. Kling, jtkling@central.uh.edu

Here is the original post:
ProfNet Experts Available on Gene Patent Case, Lactation Discrimination

Comments are closed.