Comments on: What Makes Genes Patentable?

By: Charis

Charis — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 21:56:17 +0000

I understand that Myriad Genetics patented 2 genes implicated in breast cancer, and that to study those two genes you now have pay a fee of up to $3ooo. To me it seems like claiming ownership of a distant island just because you invented some binoculars to look at it with.

By: MrBloke

MrBloke — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 11:34:48 +0000

I’m off to the patent office now to patent chlorine and sodium since these do not exist in nature in their pure form and I have just ingeniously purified them in my kitchen. I might patent Boron and Magnesium after that. Also, I have always longed for exclusive rights to Lithium so I might take that aswell. Then I think I will patent the entire spectrum of blue light. You guys can have the other colours once you have extracted/purified their photons from ‘white’ light.

By: Harriet

Harriet — Thu, 11 Aug 2011 00:10:07 +0000

The first living thing was NOT patented as a result of Diamond v Chakrabarty. Louis Pasteur patented a yeast in 1873, for example, and plants were patented in the early 20th century.

By: Templar 7

Templar 7 — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 00:24:20 +0000

Also, what’s the difference between human DNA and food DNA….companies out there already have and do have genetic patents on grain seeds.

By: Leslie

Leslie — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 22:56:30 +0000

Some good points here, it seems that there are some gray areas in how these cases are won and lost in court. I hope that the knowledge is being used with good intentions and not just a way to make loads of money. I fear that this might be the case in some instances though, similar to the pharmaceutical industry.

By: Pippa

Pippa — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 19:15:33 +0000

It seems logical to be able to patent a method for testing for genes or extracting them, or maybe even inserting them. This is not really patenting the gene themselves. If a gene patent means that no one else is allowed to independently work out what the gene is and use that knowledge, then we are in trouble. However I understand that this is not the case. In the long run this is less likely to be a problem than our current approach of considering and running health care as a business as opposed to a service. There are bigger fish to fry in the field of health care.

By: Garry

Garry — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 12:31:52 +0000

Brett has it correct AFAIK, you could patent hydroponics, UV lights, etc but you could not patent the natural plant or process.

By: Brett. Carr

Brett. Carr — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 11:40:46 +0000

Naturally occurring seems to indicate that genes can’t be patented. To remove them from their normal environment doesn’t make them unnatural. That would be like taking a plant into a lab and causing photosynthesis with artificial light and then claiming to patent photosynthesis. Imagine charging every farmer a licence fee.

By: dr

dr — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 01:50:00 +0000

Isolated genes, separated from a cell and the other nucleic acids of the genome do not exist in nature. The court interpreted the statutory law and decades of case law correctly imo.

People who attack gene patents should focus on changing the law relating to patents if this disturbs the them. Would like to point out that as much as people complain about patents, they’re really complaining about licensing practices and perceptions of exorbitant licensing fees being charged by companies who own the patents. (Those perceptions may well be justified…)

By: PL

PL — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 00:15:14 +0000

“Molecules and compounds from the human body or human cells, as long as they are altered somehow or took some ingenuity to extract, have been patentable for more than 100 years.” — you’re conflating two ideas. In the scenarios you mention here, you can patent the PROCESS. But you’re not legally allowed to patent the actual, natural thing. That is, if someone came up with a different way of extracting the same molecules or human cells, you shouldn’t be allowed to sue them just because they were “your” molecules. Not only does it fly in the face of reason, it’s anti-competitive.