National advisory committees have considered the obligations owed to research participants in the event of research-related injuries. These committees have repeatedly concluded that injured research participants are entitled to compensation for their injuries, that the tort system provides inadequate remedies, and that the United States should adopt no-fault compensation. But because the advisory committees have made no concrete proposals and have taken no steps toward implementing no-fault compensation, the United States continues to rely on the tort system to compensate injured research participants.

This Article argues that recent legal developments and a transformation in the global research landscape make maintaining the status quo morally indefensible and practically unsustainable. Recent legal developments exacerbate the longstanding difficulties associated with the tort system as a method of compensation; nearly every injured research participant will have difficulty recovering damages, and certain classes of injured research participants—those in federal research and those abroad—are prevented from recovering altogether, resulting in substantial unfairness. In the past ten years, many of the countries substantially involved in research have mandated systematic compensation. By not mandating compensation, the United States has become a moral outlier and risks having its noncompliant research embargoed by foreign ethics committees, thereby delaying important biomedical advances.

This Article examines alternative compensation mechanisms and offers a concrete no-fault compensation proposal built on systems already in place. The proposed system can be implemented in the United States and countries around the world to help harmonize various national compensation systems and to more equitably and effectively make those injured by research whole.

Access to medicine remains a core challenge of global health, despite progress in bringing affordable HIV/AIDS drugs to developing countries. Yet, the debate seems to have shifted. For a long time it focused on two specific issues: (1) whether and to what extent international trade agreements that strengthen patent protection hindered states and NGOs in their efforts to promote access to life-saving medicines at reasonable costs; and (2) whether access to life-saving therapies could be seen as a component of the right to health. The challenge for access to medicines appears at this point, however, to be more political than legal. Indeed, from a legal perspective, it seems fairly settled that international trade agreements permit, under certain conditions, the production and sale or export of generic versions of pharmaceutical products that address an important public health threat in developing countries. The concept of the right to health has often been invoked in this international context. An increasing number of domestic court decisions also explicitly acknowledge that access to life-saving therapies can be seen as a component of the right to health.

This Article analogizes early semiconductor technology and its surrounding economics with isolated genes, stem cells, and related bioproducts, and their surrounding economics, to make the case for sui generis (of its own class) intellectual property protection for isolated bioproducts. Just as early semiconductors failed to meet the patent social bargain requiring novelty and non-obviousness in the 1980s, isolated genes and stem cells currently fail to meet the patent bargain requirements of non-obviousness and eligible subject matter that entitle them to traditional intellectual property protection. Like early semiconductor chip designs, nevertheless, the high cost of upstream bioproduct research and development, coupled with the need to sustain continued economic growth of the biotechnology industry, mandates that Congress provide some level of exclusive rights to ensure continued funding for this research. Sui generis intellectual property protection for isolated bioproducts would preserve the incentive to continue innovation in the field. As illustrated by the semiconductor industry, however, such sui generis protection for this technology must include limitations that address the need to provide an appropriate level of public access to facilitate downstream product development and enrich the public domain.

Healthcare deficiencies in the United States have long been perpetuated by a shortage of primary care providers. A core purpose of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is to provide health insurance for America's approximately fifty million uninsured. Implementation of universal health insurance, however, does not mean sufficient healthcare access for all, since the supply of physicians does not and will not meet demand. For reasons reviewed in this Article, the current physician shortage mainly impacts primary care providers. This shortage is particularly troubling because increased provision of primary care relative to specialty care has been associated with improvement in health outcomes, disease prevention, cost effectiveness, and coordination of care. This Article highlights provisions in the PPACA that impact primary care physicians. Finally, this Article proposes the creation of a universal primary care loan repayment program and a national residency exchange designed to alleviate the U.S. primary care crisis by facilitating optimal distribution of resident physicians in each medical specialty based on community need.