In contrast to the position in many advanced industrial countries, Japan lacks a specific regulatory framework to govern the ways in which insurance companies can make use of genetic test results. Whilst this situation has not yet given rise to major social or legal problems, this article nevertheless argues that the current policy vacuum is unsatisfactory. Some options for the development of an appropriate regulatory system are suggested that draw from the recent experiences of countries such as Australia and the UK whilst taking into account some particular features of the Japanese insurance market.

Can a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member exclude an invention from patentability on the grounds of ordre public or morality whilst at the same time permitting the sale and distribution of the invention within its territory? This is a question raised by recent developments in Europe, where moral restrictions have been placed on the patentability of ‘uses of human embryos’, yet human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, is permitted and encouraged within numerous EU Member States, and indeed, also funded through the central EU science budget. This chapter assesses whether such an incoherent regulatory landscape would survive WTO scrutiny. The chapter argues that in general, if a WTO Member has not attempted to ban the commercial exploitation of a certain invention within its borders, measures prohibiting the patenting of that invention on moral grounds would likely be viewed as constituting an unjustified restriction on international trade. More concretely, it is suggested that the WTO Member would be found to be in violation of its obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to make patents available without ‘discrimination’ as to the field of technology.

Can a World Trade Organization (WTO) Member exclude an invention from patentability on the grounds of ordre public or morality whilst at the same time permitting the sale and distribution of the invention within its territory? This is a question raised by recent developments in Europe, where moral restrictions have been placed on the patentability of ‘uses of human embryos’, yet human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, is permitted and encouraged within numerous EU Member States, and indeed, also funded through the central EU science budget. This chapter assesses whether such an incoherent regulatory landscape would survive WTO scrutiny. The chapter argues that in general, if a WTO Member has not attempted to ban the commercial exploitation of a certain invention within its borders, measures prohibiting the patenting of that invention on moral grounds would likely be viewed as constituting an unjustified restriction on international trade. More concretely, it is suggested that the WTO Member would be found to be in violation of its obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to make patents available without ‘discrimination’ as to the field of technology.