Patenting Genes
So we've all heard of patents pertaining to physical inventions like phones and computers. But what about something that isn't necessarily man-made? Like genes.
In the world of biotechnology, an ongoing controversy over whether or not genes can be patented has generated much concern not only among companies but also individuals. So what does it really mean to patent genes? Well, what it boils down to is the DNA sequence that comprises a gene that has known function. Companies have an invested interest in patenting genes because if they own the patent to a particular gene, no other biotechnology company can use or sell what they produce with that gene. This certainly makes sense since companies and their investors may put millions of dollars of research into one gene. Currently, genes that can be patented are those that are artificially created and are not found in nature. This makes sense because if you engineer a gene that serves a particular function (such as "eating oil") and that gene is not natural, it should considered man-made and therefore patent protectable. The real controversial debate comes from whether or not you can patent natural genes, particularly those of human genes.
Recently, the Supreme Court overruled a ruling that human genes can be patented. Myraid Genetics Inc. a biotechnology company located in Salt Lake City, owned a patent for "two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer" for over a decade ago. Myraid Genetics Inc., since then, has been the only company allowed to conduct research and issue diagnostics (which can cost over $3000) on these genes, an issue that many believe is unfair. Courts had to decide "whether or not isolated genes are products of nature or man-made inventions." A CBS news anchor also stated, "we shouldn't be limited to something as basic as our own DNA. The human genome still holds secrets that can save lives and you can't put a price tag, or a patent, on that." Now that the Supreme Court has denied the ability for companies to patent human genes, a precedence will be set that will certainly affect many new biotechnology research in the future.
I think that patents on genes should not be allowed because it raises an ethical issue. Say a company did a diagnostics on you and found a gene that they wanted to own, does that company now own a part of you? Without patents however, companies may find it too risky to invest that much time and money in research if they can't own rights to what they end up discovering. What do you think of gene patents? Do you think that companies should have the right to own human genes?
Article and Image Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/human-genes-patent-supreme-court_n_1380990.html
Brian, I agree - it seems preposterous and highly morally questionable that natural human genes, components that make up humans, should be patentable. Just as Isaac Newton didn't own a patent on gravity and as Einstein didn't patent the special theory of relativity, discoveries or hypotheses comprising or explaining natural phenomena shouldn't be owned by individuals or corporations.
ReplyDeleteDiscovery does not mean creation - a patent requires an invention, it presupposes a "homo faber" (man the maker) creating or inventing something novel and useful. By unravelling nature's secrets, scientists surely do worthwhile work and deserve credit for their work, but they do not gain ownership of the things they discover. Do the astronomers and astrophysicists who discover planets and stars in distant galaxies own those celestial bodies, simply because they discover them for humanity? I should think not - the same holds true for natural genes.
This is a very thought-provoking topic, and reminds me of the story of Henrietta Lacks. She was a woman who died in the 1950's of cancer, and a piece of her tumor was kept by the hospital to be used for research. It was found that her cells were immortal- they possessed some characteristic (I think their telomeres never shortened on replication) that kept them alive forever. Her cells were cultured for decades, used all over the world for research, and led to the creation of countless vaccines including polio. Her cell line is still the most common one used for research today. However, her or her family were never informed by the hospital, and after she died, they went dozens of years without knowing Henrietta's cells were making researchers rich. The family received no compensation, besides some recognition in recent years. This raises the question: do we have the rights to our own genes? Yes, the researchers only "discovered" not "invented" the properties of Henrietta's cells, but then they used them to create something else that yielded a profit. How can we categorize this situation?
ReplyDeleteOne issue that I remember hearing about was with Monsanto patented corn. An organic farmer was adjacent to a GMO farmer. The GMO farmer pollen got into the organic farm, and even though the organic farmer didn't want to produce GMO corn, a court held that they owed Monsanto damages for violating their patent.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested in patenting genes, you should check out the work of Dr. Vandana Shiva, an incredibly brilliant seed activist.
I think you raise a bigger question from this blog post about the nature of our patent system: is it broken?
ReplyDeleteI'm careful to phrase it that way, however, because the strength and also the weakness of our legal system if the wide margin of gray area that affects almost every legal ruling. There are no black and white criteria for making decisions on things like patents, as you point with man-made versus natural genes, but rather it's about balancing all the complexities and conflicting factors surrounding a case and coming out with the 'most fair' decesion.
My belief is that the patent system was created to spur pioneers and innovation, but even when it is treated through the scope of fair use, it is a broken and abused system these days, and the post I believe highlights that well.