Two documents with crucial implications for the future of personalized medicine were released last month: a report from the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) emphasizing the importance of open data sharing (see go.nature.com/hofgoc) and a US Supreme Court decision ruling against two patents (see go.nature.com/lj9kyl), which could have the opposite effect.
This creates a quandary for companies aiming to pursue personalized treatments or methods, because those that adopt the IOM’s advice to share their information now face greater hurdles to protecting their contributions through patents.
Companies should not be discouraged from exploring personalized medicine — to do so would deny society the benefit of tailored therapies. Likewise, firms that prefer to keep personalization algorithms secret will hinder scientific progress.
Instead, companies could sell value-added products that use open algorithms and statistical models — much like Google and IBM, for example, which have embraced open-source software.
To deliver effective treatments to patients, we need to find a way to reward companies for investing in personalized medicine while allowing the scientific community to advance knowledge rapidly.
Contributor Information
Jeffrey T. Leek, Email: jtleek@gmail.com, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Roger D. Peng, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
R. Reeves Anderson, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington DC, USA.