Slashdot Mirror
Squatting On Life
Andy Smith writes "An investigation by The Guardian newspaper has exposed the extent of human and non-human gene patenting by private firms, universities and charities. What stands out about this investigation is that many of these organisations are 'gene-squatting', ie: patenting genes that they do not yet understand. There are currently over 160,000 patent applications for whole or partial human genes, with more than 20% being from one company, Genset."
this is accually a good thing. You see we don't really understand genes yet. We have obtained vague understandings of some, but it will be years before we really understand them. The patent will expire in 17 (20?) years.
By the time we understand and can do anything we the gene with patented number 18953894 (made up, I don't know if it is a valid number) the patent will have expireed and nobody will be able to use this patent to get money from medical treatment!
From the Human Genome Project's website:
The patentability of inventions under U.S. law is determined by the Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in the Department of Commerce. A patent application is judged on four criteria. The invention must be "useful" in a practical sense (the inventor must identify some useful purpose for it), "novel" (i.e., not known or used before the filing), and "nonobvious" (i.e., not an improvement easily made by someone trained in the relevant area). The invention also must be described in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the field to use it for the stated purpose (sometimes called the "enablement" criterion).
In general, raw products of nature are not patentable. It's usually when these DNA products have been isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form not found in nature that they become patentable.
For the rest of the explanation, go to:
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/patents.html
The Human Genome Project's web page is at:
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/
Hopefully this will clarify things for people who don't understand what is meant by "patenting genes"
How can you patent something that you discover rather than invent?
If Ug had patented the color of the daytime sky 30K years ago, would the rest of us have to pay a fee to view it?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Can anyone explain how the hell it's possible to patent a human gene? I'd like to know that, since you can't fight what you don't understand and I sure don't understand why there isn't just about 1 billion year of prior art (well, ~30000 if it's a human-specific gene, but still)...
Is there anyone out there who knows?
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
These patents are here to protect the investments of the genetics companies who have been researching into genetic engineering and gene therapy. It doesn't come cheap, why shouldn't they patent their findings?
No, you'll actually find that companies are patenting particular sequences without knowing what they do. Patents are not there to give someone a monopoly for the hell of it, patents are meant to add knowledge to the public domain, by offering the the inventor a limited monopoly for it. If they want a monopoly, they should have to tell us what the genes do first. This is just typical of how corrupt the patent system has become; companies expect to get outright monopolies based on overbroad patent applications. The idea of 'inventing' something and having that protected has long gone. I would go so far as to say this is a good thing in many ways. It stops unscrupulous cowboy genetic's companies messing around with a set of genes in say, maize, and creating some sort of super-weed. At least this way, only the people who actually know what they are doing can apply their findings to genetic engineering.
More rot. Only governments can demand scientists stop messing with genetics. A patent doesn't stop you from doing something, it just passes control to the patent holder, Mr Drug Company. Do you think they give a rat's ass about gene splicing? Not if they can make money off it.
The other bit I don't like is that these patent monopolies will destroy the research community. It's no longer collaborative research within the scientific community, it's private hands-off-this-is-mine greed driven research.
Does my bum look big in this?
Someone from one of the genetic research places was trying to explain this on BBC Radio 4 this morning. His argument was that they weren't patenting genes, but patenting medicines ('molecules') that used the genes as part of themselves. In other words, they take a chunk of DNA that makes a useful substance (say, insulin), then diddle around with it chemically to make it into a drug you can take orally.
They argue that if they can't stop other people using the gene in medicine then they cant afford to carry out the R+D.
So the media latch on to this and call it 'patenting life' and 'privatising genes'. The genetic sequence is not private, as far as I can tell, but the patents are designed to stop people making things from gene sequences.
Baz
You've always been permitted to patent discoveries. The majority of chemical compounds for which patents have been issued have been isolated from nature (and, often, subsequent patents issued on chemical modifications thereof). The notion is that it's patentable because the "inventor" may not have initially created the compound, but he did recognize it, isolate it, and determine a use for it. Strange but true. In fact, very few patents issued in the past 100 years (in any country) cover something entirely novel -- just novel uses for existing things or modifications of existing things.
As for gene patents, there is a wide range of them. The majority of genes (patented or otherwise), have a known (or likely) function assigned to them -- in part because it's hard to make the argument that something is a gene without providing evidence that it is (in fact, in the US you can't make such a claim without presenting the evidence). All of the actual genes patented have a known function with one notable exception: cDNA sequences (expressed sequence tags).
ESTs are, by virtue of experimental design, known to be sequences of expressed genes (at least transcribed DNA). About 3/4 of the ESTs you can produce for a given organism will be readily assignable a putative function as well as info about tissues where the gene is expressed, conditions where the expression occurs, subcellular localization, often times it can even be assigned a place in a particular biochemical pathway. The value lies in the fact that the ESTs can be subsequently used to find tremendous amounts of information regarding regulatory pathways, co-expression, and eve, if you are clever, where the other 1/4 of uncharacterized ESTs come into the equiation. ESTs can also be used as the basis of a slew of technologies that permit researches to visualize the differential activity of all genes in an organism in response to environmental and developmental factors. ESTs themselves can even produce simple drug targets. This type of information and the systems built up around it are probably justifiably patentable.
That said, many corporations patent large collections of genomic sequences as well as ESTs. This is raw DNA from the organism that has been sequenced in tiny pieces and the tiny pieces assembled into large chunks. Why? Well, not every gene is expressed in high enough levels to be readibly detectable in EST libraries and if you want to find them, you need the genomic sequence. The genomic sequence also gives you information about the spatial arrangement of genes, large scale structure of information storage including synteny (where a huge chunk of one genome appears in another genome but rearrangements), colocation of genes (genes in similar pathways tend to congregate), mapping mutations, etc. Genomic information can, if properly handled, also be used to contribute to gene discovery and the whole-genome profiling of gene expression.
I suppose the question is whether or not the inherent an immediate utility of sequence information to molecular biologists and bioinformaticists meets the minimal requirements for patentability. I would say that in the US the answer would be yes, since the information represents an act of discovery (the sequences) and creation (all the sequences are man-made constructs derived from natural sources and annotated in machine-readable form) for which there exists a working model (the constructed libraries and subsequent information derived tehre from) and a definable utility (sometimes a target for drug discovery, but predominantly the utility is for conducting sequence-based research).
That said... I also beleive that there are many technical grounds upon which someone can essentially generate a parallel set of libraries and information and claim they have something new, and defense against that might be tricky. I'm not sure whether spending the cash to patent all of this information is worth while. Though I'm certain it's beneficial to the consumer since the information becomes public knowledge through the patent process rather than allow companies to conduct genetic entirely out of public view.
Suppose one of these patented genes turned out to instrumental in curing a certain form of cancer. The patent-holder demands, say, $1 billion to license the gene for use in this treatment (because of other patents pending, they aren't capable of producing the treatment themselves).
Suppose I have that form of cancer and death is imminent without immediate medication. This financial gridlock is preventing me from getting the treatment I need to save my own life.
It seems to me that I should be able to sue the patent-holders for extortion, criminal neglect, and wrongful death (posthumously). Can you give me a reason why I shouldn't win?
The fact is, these companies can sit on these genes for the next 17 years and not do a thing with them. Why not? They didn't know of a single application of the gene when they got the patent -- why would we assume that they'll ever find one?
It is criminal to allow someone to hold a patent over the mere existence of a chemical. No matter what the patent actually says, this is in effect what they are doing. If they can't find an application for it that differs significantly from "prior art" (in this case, the human genome), then it shouldn't be patentable.
By the same logic, I should be able to patent human hemoglobin.
What the hell, I think I'll patent the entire patent system while I'm at it. The money ought to really start rolling in then...
If they want to patent genes like they "made" them, that's fine by me.
I just keep thinking of the handsome settlement I'll be getting when I can prove in court that they "forced" their genes onto me, and I'm now stuck wearing glasses.
On the other hand, it's also a good thing that these companies have gotten ALL these patents on things they didn't create. Helps bring the current system down a little further.
Patenting a gene is kind of like patenting a color. Sure, you can claim that anyone using your color (cornflower for instance) has to pay you money. However, that is not to say that someone mixing Navy Blue (which is GPL'd) and a bit of Sun Yellow, and some Orange can't achieve the same effect.
Genetics works almost the same way. While they can own the patent on something all day long, they cannot enforce it on anyone who can reproduce the same effect purely by accident.
On the other hand, finding out who patented genes for sickle cell anemia would be pretty damn funny. Sue them twice. Once for being stupid.
"So, you are responsible for sickle cell anemia, which affects primarily black people."
"Well, we didn't actually create it, sir. We just kind of found it, and decided that we would patent it."
"So, you obtained a patent on something you didn't create, in order to be able to hold something over the black community?"
"No, we just wanted to patent the actual genes."
"So, you're trying to extract money from victims?"
"No, sir. We're trying to do research with our patented item."
"That you didn't create."
"Yes"
"That no one else now has access to but you."
"Yes."
"That affects primarily the black community."
"Yes, that is a statistical fact."
"So tell me, how are we to beleive that you first locate something in the black community, exploit it to gain a patent, to extract more money from other research on the same subject, then, file a patent claiming ownership, then turn around, and deny that you created your patented item, but only found it, and are somehow not responsible for these 4 million sickle cell anemia victims in front of you?"
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Which one? I think Ptah is still locked in a "prior art" suit with Jehovah. And don't even mention the whole Marduk thing (a lot of us think Jehovah only got away with that one 'cause Moses was such a tricky lawyer).
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Surely his patents have expired by now, as he died 1967 years ago, for your sins.
Does anyone know if the patent office renews patents when you are born again?
We all have prior use!
-kidlinux.
Date: 1/06/00
Patented Submitted By: God (insert name of preferred deity)
Patent Numbers: 6, 6.1, 6.2
Patent #6 - Genome
This patent covers a series of molecule particles combined in such a way as to provide pattern or blue print which through cascading effects eventually produce a functional human being. These sequences will be referred to henceforth as Genomes. The exact sequence of these molecules is controlled by patent #6.1, the HEA (Human Encryption Algorithm)
Patent #6.1 - Human Encryption Algorithm
Patent 6.1 covers the HEA or Human Encryption Algorithm. The HEA is an asymmetric encryption algorithm which takes for input two genetically signed Genomes (Genetic Signatures are generated though the HEA encryoption of an individual's Genome). The algorithm will then produce a new Genome that is a unique combination of the two input Genomes. Application of the HEA Algorithm, and the signing process are patented under patent number 6.2, Genome Transmission Protocol.
Patent #6.2 - Genome Transmission Protocol.
This section has been classified TOP SECRET and is being held until the NSA has determined if application of the GTP can be used safely in public society. You can be sure we will be testing the Genome Transmission Protocol extensively to determine its security.Umh, we are also accepting applications for Security Enhancement Experiment Partners for this testing program. Please send resume, and photograph, to ADDRESS CLASSIFIED.
Several Things:
I think patents, in this case, are a good thing. For example, Genentech patented EPO, and on the basis of this patent produced drugs (recombinant EPO). The time line for drug production, clinical trials, etc... is around 10-15 years, with a price tage or many millions. WHY, without protection from other people piggybacking on your work, would you do this? It is fine to claim that people are blindly patenting, but from a personal perspective of actually being one of those evil people, I think that this is an incorrect statement. We, and everyone else that does this DOES HAVE SOME IDEA. Does that mean that we have all the answers? NO, but to get those answers takes years and dollars, and not insignificant numbers of either of them. Without patent protection, drug companies will not get within a million miles of the gene. All that can be produced with non-patented genes are generic drugs, on which drug companies do not make money. You can argue they make too much money, but there is a reason that the US is at the forefront of the medical world, and money is a pretty good explanation. I do beleive selfish motivation produces the drugs, as that produces the money, and gets you the recognition. This is not like a software problem, where it will be solved by next year. Each gene WILL take years and millions of $, and with a failure rate (defined as not usefull for making a drug out of) at around 80%, you need some protection for the ones that work or you will never make any money.
EST patents are still under question, with no defense of them being mounted, but I would agree that they suck. You have no function on them at all, so patents on them are wrong. For whole genes, function is a lot more clear (although real far from crystal clear).
On a related note: If you get govenment grants (majority of researchers in US) you are required to patent, or otherwise protect your work BY LAW. Failure to do so will get you, and your university, in trouble.
Gavin Fischer
If a company patents a gene or sequence, the potencial revenues that any other company would have if it developed an application from that gene or sequence are reduced. The tendency will be that each company will only investigate applications from their own "pool of patented genes" (to maximize returns).
How can the reduction in the number of resources being thrown at a certain problem (e.g. crack a certain gene) increase research eficiency?
If two or more genes which are necessary for a certain process are patented by different companies how many years do you think will be needed before any application is developed for those genes? (I bet it's more than 17 ...)
Worse, in this situation it is quite likely that one or more of the companies involved will start researching THEIR OWN GENE (it's their's 'cause they bought it) only to find later on that they need another gene which is OWNED by another company - quite likelly they will just scrap the investigation and go try a "more promising" gene (what a waste)
You've heard the saying 'Some people shouldn't be allowed to breed', the saying is now 'People who can't pay the royaltys are not allowed to breed'. :)
Richy C.
--
the recent sharp uptick in purchases of "Patent Granted" rubber stamps in the DC area office supply stores.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }