Comments on: Court Strikes Down Patents on Two Human Genes; Biotech Industry Trembles

By: Alvin

Alvin — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 16:35:44 +0000

Providing the SERVICE of treating disease is the money generator and needs to be the focus for incentive to continue research. Patent the process. Owning a patent on a genome is ridiculous and absurd and completely counter-intuitive. It’s a gene … it ALREADY EXISTS. You might as well patent all the letters in the alphabet, or a raincloud. These bio-businesses need to be put in their place and get back to understanding what they are in business for. it’s NOT just about making money … but of course, that’s what the American system can only seem to focus on.

By: Dov Henis

Dov Henis — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:50:43 +0000

Wives May Patent Husbands?
RNA Or DNA Genes, Organisms, Should Not Be Patentable
Organisms Should Not Be Patentable

Key Cancer Patents Killed
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57265/

All organisms, regardless of size, natural or modified by humans, should not be patentable.

Otherwise where is the limit???

My wife of few years might yet apply to patent me…?!

Dov Henis
(Comments From The 22nd Century)
03.2010 Updated Life Manifest
http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065

By: Philip

Philip — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 09:49:45 +0000

There’s a fascinating take on this at the Skeptic’s Health Journal, sort of provides some of the background to the debate, if interested you can read on it here, http://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/

By: Illusions

Illusions — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:53:28 +0000

Bravo Tom Waite. That is absolutely the truth. What I find intriguing is the fact that business interests are so capable of selling the idea that it will be harmful to us to make them act according to the law and any reasonable legal standards. “If you dont allow us to profit ridiculously, you wont have access to x, y, z, technology.” Even if that were the case, we could subsidize that along with all the other public goods that are unprofitable. I would rather that than have my DNA belong to someone else, and have to pay who knows what ransom to access it.

I am glad you pointed out that the public dime funded that research. As it often does. And you are right, the potential for abuse in enormous. Good job. Although I do like Doug Watts idea that since they think they “own” the gene, perhaps they should be liable for its actions.

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 13:53:30 +0000

No one should be able to patent life or anything that occurs in nature. The potential for abuse is staggering. We would have to pay these companies just to live.
That being said, based on Tom Waite’s information, which to my knowledge is accurate, we paid for the research that led to these discoveries. Therefore, shouldn’t the taxpayers own any potential patents that have arisen due to said research?

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 06:23:20 +0000

I think Matt T is onto something. It just strikes me as absurd that somehow sequencing genes imbues ownership. What Matt suggested ensures the genes remain public property while providing incentive for private companies to do the legwork of figuring out how to make the information medically useful.

By: Doug Watts

Doug Watts — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 05:11:36 +0000

If the “owners” of defective gene segments (say, that lead to breast cancer) want to be responsible for the effect of these patented genes on people, and thereby become financially liable for the effect of the “their” genes on peoples’ health, then by all means, full steam ahead.

By: Avi

Avi — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 23:22:39 +0000

While you can’t patent a gene, I wonder if you could possibly patent primers that flank the gene. That would have a similar end result and would get around this new ruling.

By: BenJ

BenJ — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 20:00:51 +0000

I have no qualms whatsoever about erasing all of these gene patents. Biotech companies should make money (via patents) on their “novel treatments and techniques” not on the “knowing gene xyz exists.”

Treatment techniques are NOT required to obtain these gene patents.

The point is that gene patents actually make innovative techniques acting on the same gene difficult/expensive/impossible.

By: Tom Waite

Tom Waite — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:28:36 +0000

Doug is wrong. The reason the DNA was sequenced in the first place is because of everyone’s tax dollars. The Human Genome Project was paid for by our government, by you and me. In the specific case of Myriad Genetics, the BRCA genes were identified as a part of NIH sponsored research, also paid for 100% by our tax dollars.

The lawsuit aims to set a basic outline for what kinds of developments constitute patents. Products of Nature (i.e. things you find that exist already in nature) are historically not patentable. You can’t patent a rock, but you CAN patent a process for modifying that rock, or an invention that you create that uses a rock as one of its components.

With regards to gene patents, the idea would be that the gene itself should not be patentable, but any specific drug or assay using that gene could be patented. This would enable specific testing methods and drugs to be patentable, but would also allow competition from other companies. Currently there is no competition at all because Myriad Genetics is the only company in the United States that is allowed to sequence your BRCA genes. If you want a second opinion, where can you go? Nowhere.

Imagine that! DNA sequencing technology has been around for half a century, and the human genome sequence was developed purely through US tax dollars. But somehow you’re not allowed to use any type of DNA sequencing technology or assay of any kind to look at the information in your own cells??? If I wanted to start a company to use 50 year old technology to read the publically available sequence of people for money, I’d be sued by 20,000 different companies! Currently it costs about 5,000 to 10,000 to sequence an entire human genome, but if I was going to pay the licensing or sequencing fees of all these companies, it would cost $30,000,000!

This is madness, and it’s not what we typically think of as an acceptable definition of a patent in other areas of science or business.

Each person’s genome is their own property, there is nothing more individual or personal than your own genetics. If you want to get it sequenced, it’s your right. If you want to get it sequenced by a particular patented method, then you have to pay that company, and let the companies compete on price and data quality. But nobody owns my genes, and you shouldn’t let yourself be convinced that anyone owns yours either.

Tom Waite, MD-PhD
New York, NY