↓ Skip to main content

Patenting human genes: Chinese academic articles’ portrayal of gene patents

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Patenting human genes: Chinese academic articles’ portrayal of gene patents
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0271-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li Du

Abstract

The patenting of human genes has been the subject of debate for decades. While China has gradually come to play an important role in the global genomics-based testing and treatment market, little is known about Chinese scholars' perspectives on patent protection for human genes. A content analysis of academic literature was conducted to identify Chinese scholars' concerns regarding gene patents, including benefits and risks of patenting human genes, attitudes that researchers hold towards gene patenting, and any legal and policy recommendations offered for the gene patent regime in China. 57.2% of articles were written by law professors, but scholars from health sciences, liberal arts, and ethics also participated in discussions on gene patent issues. While discussions of benefits and risks were relatively balanced in the articles, 63.5% of the articles favored gene patenting in general and, of the articles (n = 41) that explored gene patents in the Chinese context, 90.2% supported patent protections for human genes in China. The patentability of human genes was discussed in 33 articles, and 75.8% of these articles reached the conclusion that human genes are patentable. Chinese scholars view the patent regime as an important legal tool to protect the interests of inventors and inventions as well as the genetic resources of China. As such, many scholars support a gene patent system in China. These attitudes towards gene patents remain unchanged following the court ruling in the Myriad case in 2013, but arguments have been raised about the scope of gene patents, in particular that the increasing numbers of gene patents may negatively impact public health in China.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 3 21%
Student > Master 3 21%
Student > Postgraduate 2 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 14%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 1 7%
Unknown 2 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 21%
Social Sciences 2 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 7%
Other 4 29%
Unknown 2 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,243,634
of 15,606,036 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#141
of 686 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,544
of 278,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,606,036 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 686 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,238 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.