Network Twenty One

Welcome to the business Network 21. Would you like to join me, please contact me at 09289943105 or email me at yvbangeles@yahoo.com

Late arrival on the patented gene scene

Posting here a copy of an article about MC's book, NEXT. Lifted from the NewScientistsBlogs

          

           Where has Michael Crichton, of Jurassic Park fame, been these past 17 years or so? The reason I ask is because it seems he's now decided that the most iniquitous thing on the planet is the patenting of human genes. He's launched a campaign against it in Next, his latest novel. He summarises his objections and plugs the new book in Tuesday?s New York Times. 

            Which is all well and good, except that Crichton's a bit late on this issue, which first came to light in 1991 when it emerged that the US National Institutes of Health had begun filing thousands of patent applications on fragments of genes called expressed sequence tags. Publicly-funded genome researchers in other countries expressed outrage at the time, and said it was a complete waste of money. 

            Arguments raged over exactly the issues now highlighted in the novel, such as how DNA can possibly be patentable when it's part of nature, and therefore merely a discovery like elephants, Bolivia and the Grand Canyon, as opposed to a patentable invention. After reaching something of a crescendo in the mid-1990s, a mere 10 years ago, the controversy died down.

           It now surfaces only when someone tries to patent something exceptionally controversial, like a human-animal chimera, or the entire genome of an organism that causes human disease (again, as pointed out by Michael, in the context of SARS). 

          Yes, there have been cases where science and medicine have been held back because other researchers feared violating patents on disease and other genes. And yes, there have been cases where companies have used their patents to charge extortionate fees to hospitals and health authorities, for diagnostic tests to check whether patients have inherited diseases or genes that pre-dispose them to cancer, for example.

But ironically, patents have in some parts of the world helped to keep these profiteers in check. Take the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene variants that predispose women to breast cancer, for example, patented by Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City in Utah. A ruling by the European Patent Office in 2004 saw these patents revoked because publicly funded researchers in Europe, fronted by Cancer Research UK, had taken the trouble to apply for their own patents on these genes. 

           These trumped the Myriad patents, according to the EPO, and the more public-spirited European researchers allowed hospitals throughout Europe to offer the test free of charge to patients. If they had not taken out the patent, they would have had no legal weapon with which to fight the Myriad patents, forcing hospitals to carry on paying for the Myriad tests.

             It's also a reminder that patents are not about owning parts of the human genome, in the same way as someone owns a dog. They're about having legal power to stop others profiting unfairly from your hard work and invention, at least for 20 years until the patent expires. 

             The other important point is that it's all very well to agonise over the morality of patenting molecules that seem intuitively to be part of our biological heritage, but if researchers either in the public domain or in companies discover through their own hard graft human genes and parts of genes that are linked to serious diseases, why shouldn't these be included in patents aimed at drugs and diagnostic tests which convert these basic findings into practical medical applications? Provided the patent is narrow enough in scope, and the patent holders generous enough with licensing to allow other research teams to apply the findings in slightly different ways, it's difficult to see what's wrong with the original researchers being rewarded for their own hard graft.

             Equally important, it's difficult to think of viable alternatives to patenting. If human genes were unpatentable, what incentive would there be for universities and companies to spend millions of dollars developing new tests and therapies only for them to be copied and sold more cheaply by rivals? 

             Way back in 1995, New Scientist looked into possible alternatives to patenting with potential to reward inventors and researchers. Sadly, nothing really seemed to offer a workable alternative. So it looks like we're stuck with patents, unless Crichton or someone else can magic up an alternative. 

             It may even turn out to be pretty much a non-issue because of publication in the public domain of the human genome in 2001. Publication of the sequences in the public domain renders them unpatentable, and has played big part in the demise of companies exclusively set up to patent parts of the genome. Most of these companies have either gone bust or abandoned their original mission, to license their gene patents to other companies. Very few took the bait, because the information was all available publicly anyway. So most gene patents have proved to be worthless. 

            Nor do patents last forever, only for 20 years or so. The upshot is that it won't be long before all gene patents expire naturally. So very soon, the human genome will by default become the very public resource that Crichton wants it to be, just like the elements of the periodic table. 

            Are you still worried about gene patenting? Let us know in the comments below.

by Andy Coghlan, senior reporter from the SHORT SHARP SCIENCE a Science News Blog from NewScientistBlogs

Comments:

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please let us know, quoting the comment in question.

Crichton's knowledge of patent law is spotty, but he's on the right side of the debate. For a more detailed discussion, please see my blog.

By  Andrew Chin on February 16, 2007 1:11 AM  

The analogy to patenting the discovery of elephants in inapt. Considerable ingenuity and effort is required to discover gene sequences, and some property recognition acts as a financial stimulus to such inquiry. There was a "Franklin stove" episode in the paper just yesterday, where researchers at the University of Alberta have discovered that a drug previously patented for another use, cannot get produced because the patent has expired. No one wants to fund the clinical trials to get approval without patent protection. No patent implies higher death rate. No need to worry about paying high fees for the cancer treatment--it simply will not be available. Seems to me death is a higher price, but we all have our opinions.

By  Anonymous on February 16, 2007 2:35 PM  

Shouldn't the magic of the invisible hand be solving this issue? No, the invisible hand is not the final solution. Different nations, and different people in those nations, should not be denied the right to the best treatment; for any period of years, be it 10 or 20 or 70, discriminated just because of their current wealth conditions. That is a crime against humanity. Let people pay according to their means, for example.

By  Gustavo on February 17, 2007 4:02 PM  

This is like the group that wanted to patent the wild rice that Native Americans have been harvesting for centuries - all because no one had "discovered" it yet.

Here's a thought... All these discoveries by labs HAVE been funded by public money because their costs have been written off as a tax expense.

By  Gary on April 11, 2007 1:58 AM  

When you have Archlord gold, you will become strong. With Archlord money, you can upgrade and admire by others. You can use archlord online Gold to start the journey of the world. So, do not hesitate, let us move to buy Archlord gold, and then you can get a lot of cheap Archlord gold.

By  Anonymous on January 10, 2009 2:15 AM  

she knew the Asda Story gold, it is very interesting. So she wanted to let the birds play with her.she went to earn the Asda Story money to protect herself and then she continues to play the game. He was very sad and then she went to buy Asda Story Gold to buy some weapons to equip herself to be strong.So she decided to give up and she did not want to get more and more cheap Asda Story gold to make her strong.

By  Anonymous on January 22, 2009 2:29 AM  

FF11 is very famous now. My friends like to play it and buy FFXI Gil. If you have money to buy FFXI gold, you will find it is very useful. Earning Final Fantasy XI gold is not so hard. Try your best and then you can get it. I buy FFXI Gil, just because I like it. So simple the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold is.

By  Anonymous on January 22, 2009 7:35 AM

The Dangerous Christians Today (Based on the Pastor’s Message on April 3, 2011)

      Christians today have eyes but are blind, have ears but are deaf, have hearts but are abhorrent, have feet but are lame, have mouths but are dumb. They indulge in idolatry because they trust their money, skills, careers, possessions, security and other worldly treasures more than God in Heaven. They fear a lot because they don’t want to submit to God for control.

        God knows how fickle-minded Christians are. Do they truly and sincerely trust God everyday? Do they depend wholly in God? Christians are great pretenders, pretending to be true and sincere.

       Christians today do not know that once a Christian becomes true ad sincere, he struggles. He struggles to keep promises, to pray, to prepare preaching, change attitudes, to be really true, to spread the Gospel of God and to become perfect in the image of God.

       Christians today do not want to be ridiculed, to be corrected, to be taught because they think they are insulted if done so. They easily get angry, easily get offended. They always want praises. They are the first to ridicule, to judge other’s mistakes and are very resentful. They are not open for a new change of a Godly character. They do not want the feelings of being reminded. Of being reminded to wash hands before sitting on the dining table.

      Christians today have multiple characters. They are like sheep during Sundays but become goats and tigers during the rest of the week when no other Christians are near them. They are like wolves dressed like sheep when in their work – offices, businesses and elsewhere. They are regular church goers – they may be Baptists, Pentecostals, Catholics and other church members that teach the Deity of Jesus Christ. They know how to preach the Holy Bible, how to tell stories from the Holy Bible and how to interpret the Holy Bible.

        Christians today know the Christian teachings, they even know that what they are doing on earth is just vanity. Being a Christian is only a knowledge that they possess but do not truly know what is really in their hearts. They have the knowledge but do not have the true/Godly hearts. They claim, yes, they truly claim to be true Christians and are Sons of God but have they experienced how to literally tremble before God? They claim that God is in control of their lives and God is the authority in their lives, but they do not even know how to respect the God they are claiming who saved them.

     If an ordinary citizen has to go to the office of the Mayor, the Governor, the Senator or even the President of the Philippines to ask for something, he literally trembles even how prepared he may be. The feeling is but natural because those said offices are in authority. But how about the One who is truly in authority of every single thing around this planet earth who is even higher in authority than the highest office in the world? The Bible tells that even the mountains tremble and bow and the oceans roar in praise of Him. How about these Christians in name?

       Can’t we just sacrifice some of our comforts and allow God to control us and place us in the rightful place? Can we not leave some of our worldly treasures and submit to His authority. God is higher than any authority. Can we not sacrifice our worldly comforts in exchange of love, compassion and praise in every breath that we take? Can we not sacrifice to help a lost soul with that love and compassion that we have? Can we not sacrifice to just shut up our mouths if our hearts and eyes are conniving to ridicule or misjudge a lost soul instead of just acting immediately to help him/her? Can we not sacrifice to put aside a time daily to read the Bible and sincerely pray? Can we not sacrifice to be offended sometimes just for our bad attitudes to be corrected?

       Think of it. Is it easy? If you claim you are a Christian but do not feel the struggle to give up some of your comforts to help, then you are among the thousands of Christians dressed in sheep’s clothes.