Gene patents were supposed to encourage innovation, but many scientists said they would instead hinder the development and improvement of genetic testing for disease, or that monopolies would prevent cooperation or drive costs skyward.

This week’s editorial, and two commentaries deal with the effects of gene patenting on diagnostic medicine in the U.S. and the E.U..

In one commentary Robert Cook-Deegan, Subhashini Chandrasekharan and Misha Angrist discuss their case studies for the US health secretary’s advisory committee on genetics, health and society. The studies, which cover the practices of several major patent holders and testing labs, show that the picture isn’t as bleak as many feared — but it is not perfect. “Although our findings detect no pervasive effects that consistently help or hinder clinical access to genetic testing, there are some problems that could be addressed to the benefit of patients, researchers, health professionals and companies alike,” the authors say. They proceed to give recommendations on how to address these problems.

In the second commentary, Michael Hopkins and his colleagues reveal the attitudes to patenting in genetic-testing labs in the European Union. They are strikingly different from those on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. In a survey of 77 public-sector labs, only three were aware of paying licensing fees to use the genetic tests they performed. Only 32% reported having sufficient information and support to deal with patent-related issues. “Government and health-care systems can no longer afford to ignore patents on genetic inventions,” the authors write.

Do you think gene patents have had a net positive or negative effect on the development and deployment of genetic diagnostic testing?