Slashdot Mirror
New Technique Makes Most Gene Patents Irrelevant
Billy the Mountain writes "This Scientific American article, Legal Circumvention, describes a technique for circumventing gene patents whereby living cells are coaxed into expressing genes, especially those genes currently held under patents. Although, would-be exploiters of genes are prevented by patent restrictions from constructing a particular sequence and replicating it, patent law cannot be enforced in instances where an existing cell or organism is caused to express any of these patented genes and proteins."
So, if I make a computer design a part using what it is supposed to do (push levers, bend things, twist things, etc.), under a set of parameters (size, material, etc.) and feed that into a CNC mill and out came a patented part, would that be okay?
I think not...
-twb
As the Internet community has tried to tell people for years, our current ideas of Intellectual Property are dead. Copyright, patents and other monopolizing influences on pure information have no reason to exist and the Internet has finally given us the means to destroy these useless ideas. I'm not against credit for one's work; the GPL and other such licenses can protect that if people are responsible in their use of open-sourced information. The difference is that in the Information Age, if you're going to come up with ideas for the good of society, you'll have to do it solely for that reason. Is that so wrong? Would it be wrong to teach people that to do the right thing and do things that are positive for society is it's own reward in the recognition one receives? Must we promise lordly lifestyles to those who create good things? Not really. Imagine this; a world where people develop cancer medications that can be distributed at low cost because they want to cure cancer, not because they want to make money. A world where scientists work together to solve problems, instead of working separately to make money. Let's think about that. The only problem is corporations (who give us more reasons not to trust them every day) want to protect the old system, because it grants them power. The thing they don't realize is that they've already lost. The old world is dying a slow and painful death; let's do the responsible thing and euthanize it.
In general, biotechnology companies are flush with cash. So, you come to them and ask "can we license your patent for a gene?"
Well, they have no friggin' idea what that license is worth. If they need money, they say "yes." If they're flush with venture capital, and even in this downturn, they are, they just say "no." If you come back with a ridiculous offer, they'd take it anyway, but they just won't deal for a reasonable price because, to them, it's a poor gamble. They've no reason to sell these things, and they know they've got value - because you want 'em. Alternatively, they may be using that gene patent to maintain a monopoly on some drug or treatment. No way they're going to license it to you (for a reasonable amount, once again) so that you can compete with them.
There was a plan by a colleague over at Cornell to do something pro-social with genetic engineering - I think it involved genetically engineering some tropical fruit (Mangos?) to retard spoilage. Whatever it was, it solved an economic problem for poor farmers on Pacific islands. Anyway, they had a way to do it but it involved a bunch of patented genes and processes. Funny thing was, these patents were sitting idle, unused by their owners. However, the owners of these patents wouldn't sell licenses because they had no idea of the value of what they were giving out. So, when in doubt, they refused.
A lot of these gene patenting outfits are (largely failed, because they've patented genes no one really wants) extortion rings. They're actually easier to deal with, since their gene patents are often legally weak, and they don't want to price themselves out of the market.
Discussing this technology itself - this isn't new. We new about zinc finger proteins when I took freshman biology, that would have been seven years ago.
Sangamo BioSciences in Richmond, Calif., has made about a fourth of them to bypass patent restrictions by using its "zinc finger protein" transcription factors, proteins that turn genes on and off.
The implication of this sentence is that zinc finger proteins are an innovation developed or discovered by Sangamo. This is not the case.
Athersys didn't develop their technique, either (not implied by the article,) although I've only heard of it used in the past to turn random genes OFF.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
It's under appeal, but doesn't look good. The GM Canola apparently spreads like a weed and is growing everywhere. And once it hits your property, Monsanto claims the right to rip up your crop if you don't pay them for a patent license. The best general overview I've seen is the 169k pdf file linked from here.
If the Scientific American article is correct, it looks like US patent law is (for once) less screwed up than at least part of the rest of the world's.
Wrong. The DOE paid for a large chunk of the Human Genome Project, and the NIH paid even more. Assorted federal agencies give money to most biomedical researchers in the US, and we're not expected to do anything classified. It truly is given to advance the cause of science. Although, yes, we don't get the kind of serious money that makes for really nice labs- but the crystallographers down the hall from me did manage to afford an Apple Cinema display. Some wannabe-free-market-conservatives would say that the NIH is a perfect example of government waste, but it's why the US, despite our educational problems, is a scientific giant and attracts people from all over the world. Even colleagues who regularly mock US culture and our "odd" priorities admit that government support of research is nearly unparalleled.
As for the wealthy idealists, there are lots of those, and some have a shitload of money. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Keck Foundation are two of the most prominent. The HHMI gives out so much money that professors under its wing are officially both "Professor of and HHMI Principal Investigator". Good stuff.