With medical research increasingly focused on technically sophisticated diagnostic methods and selective application of therapies to the needs of different individuals, we can only speculate on the practical implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Mayo v. Prometheus (Appeal No. 10-1150, March 20, 2012). In the decision, the court itself recognized the potential for disincentivizing research and collaboration, but passed the buck to Congress to make any necessary policy changes. Unless Congress can pass a law to define what is a “law of nature,” the problems created by the Mayo decision will remain for piecemeal solution in future decisions.
To highlight the issue, let’s take a hypothetical example.
