Policy Impact
INFORMing Policy
Professor Parthasarathy is committed to bringing research insights to policy discussion and decision making, and has consulted with, given talks to, and written white papers for government officials, think tanks, and civil society advocates. She provides expert advice to civil society groups, legislators, advisory committees, and others involved in policymaking. She is a non-resident fellow of the Center for Democracy and Technology and has served on the Advisory Board for the Community Technology Collective.
-
Testifying on equity in energy and climate innovation before the US House of Representatives Appropriations Committee (Subcommittee on Energy, Water Development, and Related Agencies) as well as the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (Subcommittee on Energy).
Sitting on the conseil scientifique (scientific council) for the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES), a public administrative body reporting to the Ministries of Health, the Environment, Agriculture, Labour and Consumer Affairs.
Serving on the Committee of Science for Judges, National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine
Serving on the Study Committee for Toward Equitable Innovation in Health and Medicine, National Academy of Medicine.
Advising the Government of India on its Science, Technology, and Innovation Plan.
Providing an expert declaration in the AMP v. Myriad case related to human gene patents, which was cited extensively by the US District Court.
Serving as non-resident fellow of the Center for Democracy and Technology.
Sitting on the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s Advisory Board for “Technology in and for Society: Responsible Innovation for Inclusive Transitions.”
Directing University of Michigan’s Technology Assessment Project.
AMP V. myriad
Professor Parthasarathy’s first book, Building Genetic Medicine, influenced the 2013 US Supreme Court case AMP v. Myriad, which challenged the patentability of human genes.
The suit was brought by a coalition of scientists, physicians, and patients, and represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. District Court Judge Robert Sweet heavily cited Prof. Parthasarathy's expert declaration when he ruled that the BRCA1 gene patent is invalid because the genes are "products of nature." The declaration, based on findings from Parthasarathy’s book, argues that the gene patents were not needed as an incentive to stimulate research, and that the gene patents had negative implications for researchers, health care professionals, and patients in the United States.
On June 13, 2013, the US Supreme Court largely agreed with the plaintiffs. It decided, unanimously, that isolated human genes are "products of nature" and therefore unpatentable.
congressional testimonies
Featured: Fostering Equity in Energy Innovation, Subcommittee on Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives (July 16, 2021) and Strategies for Energy and Climate Innovation, House Appropriations Committe (February 25, 2021)