Slashdot Mirror
Poet Patents Her Genes
This is too weird not to run: An AP story about a poet who's patenting her own genes. 'I wish to protect myself from unauthorised exploitation, genetic or otherwise,' said MacLean, 30, in her application. 'I am new. I have led a private existence and have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious.' Well, I can't argue with that.
No, because (I am assuming) the patent application does not include the genetic sequence. Even if the patent on "herself" were granted, that wouldn't mean that her genes were patented.
In general, if you're looking to patent a gene, you damn well better include the genetic sequence in the patent.
It makes genetic sense that the woman's parents could claim prior art on the genes. Monsanto probably has a patent covering the entire gene pool, anyhow.
Currently, there are no laws against this, as far as I know.
Specifically: would a personal patent on my genetic structure be enough to stop this? And if he did sample me, could I sue for rights, money, a share of the companies, etc.?
Well, first of all, a gene patent needs to include the genetic sequence. Go and sequence your genome, and then we'll talk. :)
Second, a patent on a whole is not necessarily also a patent on the parts of the whole. For example, suppose you had invented a personal computer, from scratch, back in 1910. Even if you patented the computer, that would not give you exclusive rights to the microchip, unless you had also remembered to claim the microchip in your patent as well.
My point is that even if you could get a patent on your entire genome, that would not give you exclusive rights to each individual gene in your genome.
Now, you might be able to patent individual genes of yours as well, but that has all the usual restrictions--no one else has published it previously, you have to have the genetic sequence, etc.
Not unless her patent includes her genetic sequence.
(Disclaimer: I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying that's how it is.)
Taking her stance as performance art, what can we interpret from it? The act itself, seems pointedly absurd, and perhaps that is part of the issue. Applying for a patent on oneself as a unique product indicates objectification, and a warped sense of the nature of our common biological constituents.
Point two, GM foods have proven a good testing ground for the greed of, specifically, Montsanto, eg, the recent cases in India where vast swathes of the population have been rendered bondsmen to GM seed through enforced dependence on gm seed with only a one year, non-resowable lifespan.
As a side issue, here in Socialist Europe, we still tend to consider the practice of medicine as an honourable pursuit for the common good....hence heavily, or completely subsidised medical care on a means tested basis. One is always highly suspect of companies who pursue such things with a business-like ruthlessness.
To make a paralell, it may be a good thing if the patent succeeded, providing a basis for an open source licence.
Why? Because all of the above are implied in the fact that one is filing for a patent!!!
Now, those statements in and of themselves would not invalidate the application. Legally, there's no objection to making statements like the above. But the fact that she seems to have so little familiarity with patents does not bode well for her.
<SONG>
Meet Mike Froomkin
Famous I.P. lawyer
Raise a glass and shake his hand
Appreciate the man </SONG>
This is insightful? Some nonzero number of moderators need to perform an auto-cranio-rectal extraction. Methinks there ought to be a (-1: No Shit Sherlock).
Perhaps it's not insightful, but it's not obvious, at least to some /.ers--note the misinformative title michael gave the article, "Poet patents her genes".
Please note she has applied for a patent on herself. That doesn't mean the patent will be granted.
This is a great action by the poet. It sounds like she understands what is going on with the "land grab" by the biotech corporations, and it is a semi-serious political action, not just a joke.
The thing about this is that maybe if she gets the patent, she can use it againt the m**f** biotech corporations who are trying to charge rent on future medical treatements (and worse even, when it comes to privacy, bio-screening, and stuff like that). If Biopatents-Are-Us starts marketing some new gene-based treatment (or more likely, starts putting muscle on a company actually making a treatment), MacLean can counter-sue them with prior ownership of that same gene (assuming that particular one is in her own genome).
Maybe this is what a lot of people should start doing... just to make sure of good coverage of all the possible genes (although almost all human genes are actually common to all humans... or for that matter, to all primates... so you don't get much additional coverage in the second patents).
Buy Text Processing in Python
"'...you don't own your genes.... Genes belong to the race; they're simply lent to the individual for his-her lifetime.'"
-Rober Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love_
I wonder if this means she can claim prior art against the aliens' cloning project. ;)
Seriously...this does illustrate the problem. Hypothetically, ten years from now, we discover that this person has an immunity to disease x, she'll be able to collect royalties on treatments derived from any samples she provides.
This does, of course, require that the person in question be recognized as an "economic driver", which she won't be, therefore no patent.
What will happen is that companies will be allowed to say "We found the genes for lung development and have created a cure for cystic fibrosis. Pay for it." Honestly speaking, I think that's fair. There's a reasonably large investment of time and money that has to be made to sequence genes, work out what they do, and turn that into useful therapy.
Most gene patents to date (or at least the ones I personally have seen) are along the lines of "This is a sequence which allows you to perform this operation on the genome. Pay us and we'll sell you copies of it." What you'll get in the vial they send you is a molecule that one is unlikely to find in nature. To me, that means we can't complain that they're patenting a natural law.
I will admit that I do not trust the big biotech companies to be any nicer than Amazon or Microsoft or Sun. However, most of their current nastiness is in sneaking genetically modified foods around without bothering to tell anyone (at least in the USA). To date, I have not seen an abuse of gene patents. Until we know what form the abuse will take, we can't directly outlaw it. (As an analogy for those who've played RPGs, consider the attempts of a GM to keep players on a straight track. It never works. People will always find something different to do than you expected.)
And does this mean that (assuming the patent comes through), future patents on "common" genetic material/structure/code/etc. will be invalid due to a previous patent?
Go girl!
BTW, the way copyrights are going, I wouldn't be surprised if patent life were extended in the next few years. I love it when people misunderstand the intent of a law; intentional misunderstanding or not. ;)
Is she trying to get a patent because she is a person with character? Or because as a person she is quite a character?
"Open code, in other words, can be a check on state power." -Lawrence Lessig
I've said for years that my kids should be paying me license fees for their use of my genes.
Only problem is that the life of a patent doesn't extend to their prime income-earning years....
Next problem: what if I want to revoke that license?
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA
I have a blog.