Slashdot Mirror
British Columbia Bows To Breast Cancer Patent
dlek writes "Bowing to pressure from Utah's Myriad Genetics, the government of British Columbia has stopped offering a test for hereditary breast cancer. The price of the test, which looks at two genes responsible for the cancer, has tripled to $3500US. Our public health care system can't afford to pay so we're sending people to Ontario, which is ignoring the patent. People are disappointed we're not doing the same... previous Slashdot mentions are on their original claim and on the Curie Institute's challenge to the patent."
Canada's pinko health system (which I refuse to live without) colliding with our grasping new capitalism (which I also refuse to live without - although I'm embarrassed by it...)
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
Wouldn't the fact that women's cells have been duplicating those genes for thousands of years count as previous art?
Aparently not...
So what they patent the gene, I'm not copying it, or even using it (by choice), I'm just checking to see if it is there.
Since when is it a violation of a patent to see if the patented "invention" is located in a certain area?
Now if the patent is for a specific test to check for that gene, as opposed to the gene itself, that would make sense, but the articles seam not to point it that way.
I hope my government wises up and just disallows the patenting of preexisting 'inventions'
If this were testicular cancer screening, it would be covered...
Denver Isuzu Suzuki
I wrote Larry Combest a few months ago complaining about the whole Berman thing. The form letter he sent back went on and on about how important intellectual property such as copyrighted media, trademarks, and PATENTS are to the economy, business, and corporate health of the nation.
Okay, Larry, Here's a real good example of how patents are HURTING health for our beer-loving neighbors to the north.
Yeah, we'll pay to bail out a company that's committed felonies, but we won't pay extra so that some poor woman can have protect her healthy by having breast-cancer screeings. Fuckwits.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
This is the kind of issue that cries for a flamatory public debate.
On one side, the right to cure and get cured at a reasonable cost or, even, any expense.
On the other, right right to maintain a certain cash flow from products who carry a usually very expensive R&D cycle.
Patents on medical products are a touchy subject.
I think the pharmaceutical world needs a new kind of patent protection system. Something that allows any company, by law, to produce the covered material by a patent, but forcing them to return some royalties for the duration of the patent.
In other words, legally allow copying of patented products but enforcing a royalty payment to the inventor of the product.
This way, big research companies can be assured that their investments are covered, and patients are assured they'd get access to the care they require.
I never much liked the need for the idea of intellectual property (although I'm hard-pressed to come up with an alternate system that'll work as well on the whole), but somehow when we're talking about lives rather than Napster and hearing the same exact story from the people who 'own' the IP (we just wouldn't have the incentive to produce if we don't have total control) it makes the whole idea sound pretty dumb.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
What's the legality of this? According to the other article, there's a European patent on this procedure as well, so none of those "the queen of England runs Canada" cop outs :)
From one perspective, this test wasn't available a few years ago. A company spent the money and time to make it available, and now they want a return on their investment. If it was a new method of toasting bread, we wouldn't care...
but it's breast cancer detection/prevention so it's not "business" anymore. The question is: where is (or can there be) a happy balance between the pharmaceuticals screwing us, and us screwing them?
-... ---
Nice to know that your life means absolutely nothing to the economy, business, and corporate health of the nation.
If everyone had to take even one day off all at once for cancer treatments, IP would count for shit. Why can't these people see this?
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
(That was sarcasm, in case you mods out there were even thinking about modding this as flamebait.)
Slightly related news? I turned on Bloomberg this AM and found the president discussing generic prescription drugs and how the drug companies are abusing the stay process in order to maintain a hold on the drug going generic. If he's starting to look at the generic-ization of meds, perhaps it's the tip of the iceberg for things such as this.
Disclaimer: I'm a right-winger, but dunno about this idea.. after all drug companies do take finantial risks to make new medications. But holding potential benefits for people's health over their head in the name of pure profit bothers me. Like the Microsoft stuff, it possibly sets a bad precedent.. I hate m$' heavy-handed tactics but having the government step in seems a bad idea.
-fester
-'fester
I've been thinking twice now about donating money to HIV or breast cancer research. I think I've heard of many cases were people supported these programs but when the research was complete, a patent was assigned to the final product. The research that received our support is going to make someone billionaire. You guys are talking about Canada. Think about countries like India, Argentina, etc. These are countries that are in very bad shape. They can't afford paying the high cost of these treatments in US dollars. Is there any kind of law that prevents research programs that were supported by donations to patent their final program? Wouldn't it be considered unethical to say the least?
It would be nice to have a "special clause" added in the event of life saving techniques. For example, a person that may be labeled "high risk" would be able to have the testing done irregardless of the patent. However, if the population were to screened en masse, the patent would stand. I only agree with the patent issue so much as it furthers research and development, but it seems anything balanced against human life is a no brainer. Maybe the US is able to put a price tag on our lives, but I think other countries should ignore patents like this on the "right to life" platform.
Bill, can you factor this prime number for me?
So these guys pretend to be above God and/or Nature and pretend ownership of their Creation...
Interesting to see this thing coming from traditionally religious Utah... Is anyone tryng to create a new religion of The Chosen who can afford the Patented Creation that offers the Misteries of Human Genes capable to prolong Patented Life and improve Patented Health just for a miserable sacrifice of a few thousands? While The Patented Infidels will be forced to avoid touching their Patented Ills so they can meet their Patented Destiny, as they don't have a penny to pay the humble sacrifice, that is the wish of being humans?
"What we're seeing now is the tip of the iceberg," she said.
I never heard them called icebergs before... Is British Columbia really cold?
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
cancer.
Fair is fair. They want the profits from testing for the gene, they should pay the costs if the gene ends up causing cancer in a patient.
What is really outrageous is that these jerks learned about the gene and how to test for it using PUBLIC tax monies, then they split into 'private' industry, file patents and start gouging - exploiting. This couldn't happen if some congressional pockets weren't being lined in the first place.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Hopefully someone will get around to suing because the "patent" is killing them.
Assuming you're not trolling. They are, in a way -- developing new medical science is not cheap. It might cost 10 cents a pill for some medication, but producing the first pill can cost a hundred million dollars. Why spend the research money if there's no way to recover that initial cost?
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
So folk get all wound up about a US company exercising a patent right in a developed country that can afford to pay. This has been going on in Third world for twenty years with very little comment until the cost of AIDs drugs hit the news.
It is not just the people who will die because the western drug companies refuse to sell drugs at affordable prices. There is no guarantee that epidemics (AIDS is now a pandemic) will stay there and not cross to the developed world. Perhaps that is the drug co executives plan, Enron style to keep the diseases going so they can sell the drugs.
Of course the US is not above hypocrisy here. During the Anthrax scare Sen. Biden craftily proposed that the US seize the patent rights to cipro and mandate the production of generics. Congress quickly agreed. I have no doubt that Biden knew about the controversy over AIDS drugs and used the anthrax scare to deliberately cut the legs out from under the drug companies claims just before a crucial conference.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Sorry, Myriad Genetics, and any other clown who thinks they own the patent to the design of my body. Just because you reverse engineered a few portions of that design does not mean that you now control whether I can look at it or not. I think some massive civil disobedience on this whole patent issue and so called IP is in order until we get some politicions in place who can fix the present corrupt system.
Perhaps you should get forced treatment :)
from them to remove the infriging material?
That would make a hilarious court ruliing!
Considered harmful.
Yes. In Canada healthcare is provided by the provinces, based on federal grants on a yearly basis. Public opinion polls regularly show it to be the strongest supported social benefit provided in Canada. Unfortunately we're trying to provide health care in CAD $ but based on US technology, so our dollar exchange is hurting our adoption of new technology. Also, we've had problems in the past of high quality surgeons fleeing to the US since their rates are capped by the federal government since they're guaranteed salary.
Some things are not covered, like optional surgey, medications, and some quality-of-life coverage. However, other social agencies can provide support to those truly in need (although even these a struggling).
I believe national health coverage is our biggest expense, even coming ahead of defense, education, and infrastructure.
Lots of national debate on allowing privitisation of some sectors. People are afraid that this will result in 2-tier health care. Other ideas are charging nominal service fees to curb abuse (e.g. $5 a doctor's visit). For people with wealth, they have the option of going to the US to short-cut long lines for specialised service, especially relating to cancer therapy. In some cases as a Canadian citizen you are eligible for some compensation.
By no means a perfect system, but I prefer it to alternatives in other countries such as England and the US. I'd rather spend 30% of our GDP on healthcare than on a military budget.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
You can view it here.
It sounds like it patents both a method and a gene... but being that I no nothing about modern genetics, I can even being to analyze if the more important part of the patents is a novel method, or just a bunch of chemical sequences (which are listed).
_sig_ is away
This is the way capitalism works, and it does work. Without the INCENTIVE of profit from research, what company would even bother trying to make such advancements? It's funny that all of this advancement is moving at break-neck speed here in the US which is only ~220 years old, but happens to have a free market...
I like your basic idea, but it seems to me that what the pharma companies and the govt see as a reasonable rate of return will be two very different numbers. The pharma companies will say that they need to generate lots of income, so that their shareholders can make out like bandits, like Pfizer's did (I mean financially of course).
The government will say no, you should make a return related to your cost of capital. Then the companies will inflate the cost of development of their drugs, or will throw in all their R&D from failed/rejected drugs (like Hollywood studios tend to throw all their costs into the budgets of successful films, so that a percentage of the net is equal to zero). In general , it will all be a regulatory nightmare, which could make tax-financed healthcare for poor people seem positively libertarian.
The other thing to bear in mind is that the drug companies benefit a lot from government sponsored research, often not in the countries where they pay their taxes. Again, this is hard to quantify, but unless the companies are really willing to show all the numbers for their costs, in an honest way, then there's no harm in using this as an argument against firms that whine about how they need to cover their costs.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/breastcancer/
The activists are unable to understand the irony of their activism.
How about a compromise? Any researcher finding a mechanism of disease inherent within a genetic sequence can patent the sequence and receive no more than $100 per test for the diseased genes.
Or, if that amount is too low for some of the more esoteric diseases (which will not be often tested), how about a sliding scale?
We should have some legislative mechanism in place to reduce the maximum payout per test as the number of tests performed rises.
It is absolutely unreasonable to grant an exclusive patent on my genetic function (and I assume that men carry this gene sequence as well, even if it is inactive) without my personal consent. If the drug companies refuse to compromise on this issue, then they should expect wholesale disregard for their patents, as is proving to be the case.
One can patent an invention, such as a method of detecting a disease, but one cannot patent a discorvery, such as the function of a gene or an island, planet or anything such.
Thus is the mentioned patent a load of crap and can happily be ignored! (IMHO)
acctually, canada only spends 8% of it's GDP on healthcare(the U.S. spend 12%)
Also, we've had problems in the past of high quality surgeons fleeing to the US since their rates are capped by the federal government since they're guaranteed salary.
...
Insurance companies in the USA are paying less and less. It's not the utopia it used to be years ago. Doctors here are getting angry at the amount of bills that go unpaid.
I believe national health coverage is our biggest expense, even coming ahead of defense, education, and infrastructure.
By no means a perfect system, but I prefer it to alternatives in other countries such as England and the US. I'd rather spend 30% of our GDP on healthcare than on a military budget.
Yeah sure. If we had a friendly superpower as our neighbor, we could spend a lot less on defense, too. Canada can afford to invest in their healthcare system since the good 'ol U.S.A. is right there to defend them in the event of a war. Besides, who's gonna attack Canada?
It certainly isn't free, I'm in a ~40% tax bracket.
... that is an asinine reason to perpetuate the existing, severely broken system which is clearly designed to serve the few and priveleged, subsidized by higher costs for the rest of us.
I'm in a 40% tax bracket in the United States, and my employer pays for my health care insurance, which isn't nearly as good as what I had in Germany when I was working as a college intern (the money my employer pays for health insurance would likely be mine as income otherwise, so it wouldn't be at all unfair to add that to my tax bracket for a more even ocmparison, in which case the United States taxes would come out vastly more expensive than most, if not all, of the industrialized world. We pay three times what the rest of the world does for comparable healthcare).
If you look at tax rates based upon what you earn, Germany (and likely Canada, though I haven't compared the numbers myself for Canada yet) has about the same tax rate as the United States for anyone earning wages in the middle to upper-middle income brackets. Yes, if you make $500,000 or $1,000,000 / year you'll pay much higher taxes in Germany (and probably Canada) than you do in the US, but how many people does that affect, and just how impoverished are the lifestyles of those so affected. Not as impoverished as the upper middle income bracket folks, who pay roughly the same in both countries, but get a hell of a lot more for their tax dollar in Germany than they do the United States. Woopty-fucking-do if Joe Corporate Exec can't afford a second yacht this year
What is amazing to me is how utterly myopic we Americans are when it comes to socialized medicine. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies tell us how poorly socialized medicine works, citing one or two anectdotes (for which there are a dozen anectdotes making exactly the opposite point), but no hard evidence that socialized medicine a la Europe (including Germany's highly regulated medical insurance industry, the system Hilary Clinton wanted to emulate), and we as a people buy it hook, line, and sinker merely because anything having the dirty word "socialism" in it must be worse than the current 40% uninsured population we have now.
Not all that goes to health care, of course, but a good chunk does. Do I dislike the taxes? Yes. Would I want to lower taxes and go to a for-profit US-style system? Not on your life.
Amen. The irony is, I doubt your taxes are all that much higher than ours, if at all. We get to pay taxes to prop up Worldcom, line the pockets of Baby Bush and his cronies, and invade small middle-eastern countries at the behest of our oil moghuls instead. And we're told we should be 'proud' to be Americans. Feh.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
didn't you understand?> So my question is, is this totally a patent issue?
What part of
> Instead, is this problem a little bit of both. A jacked-up patent royalties to recoup R&D, and a brand of health care system stressed because of its communal nature?
That's it, blame it on the socialists.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Alright you are a biotech company. You are thinking of a big layout for an inheritable form of breast cancer...
CLIENT: What can I patent if I spend $200 million dollars?
ATTY: You can only patent your exact test. Anybody who departs from that test one iota gets to use all the fruits of your research for free.
CLIENT: Ok, shitcan that project. Let's think of another.
Oh, yeah, and nobody gets the test at ANY price. I wish at least 1 in 100 postings would think of the pathological scenario of the work never being done, or being done 30 years from now when the darn patent would have been expired for at least 10.
Or never alter them and assume its the best way. Equally moronic and myopic view.
What frusterates me is that the *most* amount of groundwork for drug research is done by universities. Pharmaceutical companies fund the commercialization and last mile research.
But yeah, I guess we'd be without viagra and zoloft without the generous, risky investments pharmaceutical companies do into research.
Seriously, the private sector is so full of itself, it frequently forgets where the real research comes from before its obvious that said research will turn into a mad phat money cow. Any industry which can be found guilty of price-fixing over and over and over again doesn't sound to me like an industry which needs (or for that matter, deserves) Fort-Knox like protection of its intellectual assets.
"Old man yells at systemd"
This company has already caused trouble for other researchers within the US. For those who would suggest that if there were no profit incentive this "innovation" of discovering a gene wouldn't have happened I suggest you read this MSNBC article, which contains the following two paragraphs:
In Philadelphia, a university stopped testing 700 women a year for a genetic predisposition to breast cancer because its lab was accused of violating a biotechnology company's patents.
"I'm quite disgusted," said Arupa Ganguly at the University of Pennsylvania, who abandoned years of breast cancer research after Myriad Genetics Inc. warned her in 1999 that she was trespassing on the company's intellectual property. "My work went down the drain."
The fact is that this company just got to a position 1 or 2 years before University researchers would have. While there still may have been a patent put on this information by the University somehow I doubt you would have to pay extortionist fees to do anything related with those genes even if it's just further research by universities.
Americans have already been suffering because of this insane idea that a gene that occurs within every human can become the sole property of a single for profit company. It falls within the government's responsibility to prevent this situation from happening but for that to occur you need a government that is "for the people" not for corporate profits.
This comment was generated by a Squadron of Ultra Ninjas
Since this patent is about method of detection, surely we could digitize the data and then perform a simple diff on the genes? 'diff' being a few decades old unix tool is definetly too old for a patent and genes can not be patented (only their method of detection), therefore this method of detection would surely be patent free?
If I am missing something in my utopic vision, could someone please point it out to me?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Actually, as I understand it, drugs are one of the major expenditures in any healthcare system, including Canada's. The fact is, people with serious illnesses can incur many thousands of dollars per year on drugs alone. Of course, this is where generics would come to the rescue, but, as we've seen, with patent life extending and companies finding loopholes in patent law, this isn't fool proof, AND forces people who can't afford new drugs to be ten years behind the times in disease treatment.
No developed country in the world spends 30% GDP on health care or anything like that on any budgetary item. Government, provincial and national Canadian spending on health is somewhere like 6%.
30% GDP on an item is enough to wreck any economy. Ask the Soviets...
Oh and England (which is actually called the United Kingdom and consists of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England) has a National Health Service. It may not be Canadian but its still pretty good. And if you have a modicum of money, you don't have to go to the US to get private care, you go to Harley Street.
To be honest, check your facts before you comment.
Oh, and s/ten years/x years/, since, in retrospect, I don't think that's the right number. :)
I might say things here that some will take as Flamebait, but I don't care.
I'd care a whole lot more about the Third-World vs. Drug Patents issue if a couple things were being done.
1. The countries bitching about the AIDS drugs actually worked to combat HIV, some of them don't think HIV causes AIDS, thus they don't try and combat the issues that are leading to the spread of HIV.
2. There is nothing in the US Constitution, Bible, Koran or Book of Scientology that says BMS, Pifzer, Bayer, or Wal-mat have to sell drugs at a price that is affordable in (Insert Country) just because thier government has crappy money policy.
Finally, the Anthrax issue and HIV/AIDS patents are two different things. Lets say there was an Anthrax attack on the US, in that case antibiotics like Cipro become a Strategic Drug. When it looked like Bayer was holding back on production to get the price up in fall of 2001, Congress acted because of that possible immediate requirement. How can one compare the possible need of 100,00-10,000,000 doses of a drug that is produced in Europe and must be had ASAP to a drug that is much less time sensitive? What happens if something happened to Bayer's production facilities? What if something happened to the transports bringing it in?
AIDS in the Third World was a completely controlable issue, but now it's out of the Box and still some Governments refuse to treat it like it should be treated, yet they want to unleash cheap AIDS drugs. Why produce HIV/AIDS drugs and hand them out when the government states publicly that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? To me it sounds like a Patent grab attempt, but a nation like Zimbabwe would never attempt a grab for the good of the ruling party would they?
For anyone boggling at how much Canada spends on health care (and realizing that 30% isn't the correct figure), you should know that here in the U.S. we spend roughly twice as much per-capita as the Canadians on health care (through insurance premiums, instead of taxes). The problem is that our system is so bogged down in inefficiency, that we're losing 50 cents on the dollar to middlemen. If we cut out the middlemen and maintained the same level of spending, we'd have a health system that'd put the Canadians to shame. And isn't that what it's all about? :)
The enemies of Democracy are
While you may have a point if this was an actual treatement being asked for but the case this time is just a simple herdiary test. I'm unclear how the rights of Myriad Genetics is being infringed or stolen from by inspecting genetic material found in every one.
So while Bald Guy Genetics may hold the patent for the gene that causes male pattern baldness do they have the right to stop someone from inspecting themselves to find out? Better break the mirrors then even if you aren't going bald. Just a simple inspection of your head of hair can test to see if you have their "patented" gene.
Charge out the wazoo for medicine. Testing is another matter.
If any significant fraction [of research leading to a new and useful invention] was funded by grants, then the patent is "corporate welfare" in its most evil form.
Pharma companies that buy the exclusive rights to research generally pay back federal research grants as part of the price of such exclusive rights. Thus, the "grants" are more like loans.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The ones who left for the US might also have included surgeons who knew they were good and felt they deserved to be paid what they were worth. Very often, one man's altruism is another man's slavery.
However, prostate cancer is a much slower killer ... often it takes -decades- to kill.
Modified diet is shown to have a possibility of slowing the progressiong further.
In cases of older men (60+ I believe) who get it, their life expectancy is considered to be the same as if they had not contracted it at all. Unfortunately, the older you are, the less operable it is, so there is a trade-off.
While we're rapidly approaching the point where life expectancy is getting high enough that prostate cancer will be more and more serious in the coming decades, I don't think it's nearly as much of an issue as breast cancer right now and therefore the funding levels are appropriate.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Canadians are friendly, most countries like us, so we don't really need such protection as we don't piss people off on a regular basis.
Except for the US of course, but who's going to protect us from them, or their patent-systems either for that matter?
Wait till the patent holders get hit with a wrongful death suit or a thousand. We'll see how these priests of the God of Capitalism look after that little fiasco.
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
Is there anything wrong with patenting something that could save people's lives? No. The purpose of patents is to promote invention by giving inventors an incentive in the form of a "head start," before their idea becomes public domain.
I see two real problems here: A patent system that allows someone to claim a patent on something they didn't invent (a gene), and parties that will abuse the system for unethical gain.
$3000 may sound like a lot of money (to me it certainly is). However, it may be the minimum amount necessary to for the inventor to recoup the costs associated with developing his invention (and thus justify its development in the first place). Whatever the price, though, if it is set too high, then consumers (whether they're governments, insurance companies, or individual patients) will consume less. If it's too low, there will be shortages. As much as many of us would wish otherwise, the laws of economics apply to medicine just as in every other field.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
You're missing the point. If the drug/test/treatment didn't exist in the first place, those people would be just as dead. I'm not saying it's okay for a company to misuse a patent to extort money, but without a patent to protect their investment, there sure as hell is no obligation (or incentive) for anyone to do world-class, and very expensive, medical research.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
On the contrary. Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties? How will this encourage research? Money drives the world for a reason. Now I admit that $3500 to test for a certain gene is quite steep, but we do not know how much money was put-forth to determine the offending genes.
If anyone could test for these genes without paying royalties, then the guy who made the discovery will not have ANY incentive to do the same in the future! This applies to drug companies as well. Sure we pay steep prices for them, but an enourmous amount of money goes into their development.
Now on another note, the Canadian health system has much worse problems than this patent issue. If my mother/father died of cancer and I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500. Hell, people pay more money for lasic surgery but bad eyesight will never kill you.
a brand of health care system stressed because of its communal nature?
You've been hoodwinked by the media. The Canadian health care system is, in fact, in better shape than the US system. It costs less to deliver health care in Canada, and it covers more people at the same time.
Read Canada's Burning! Media myths about universal health coverage from the Washington Monthly.
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
RTFA and you will know that it is too expensive to provide this service free of charge to women.
Confucious says: Man who runs behind car gets exhausted.
// jeku.com
I'm one of the unlunky people born with the XYZ mutation, as a result my body checks for the mentioned gene several million times a day.
This is becoming a costly process, with the royalties I have to pay to conduct my own tests.
I have had the gene for 25 years, can I claim prior art?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Uh.. the war is against 'the West' because Christian Pakistanis were attacked?
What the hell are you, and the moderator who modded your post up, smoking?
BTW - Christianity is a MIDDLE-EASTERN RELIGION.
It's time to take a vacation from the 'axis of stupidity' and think for yourself.
I quote:
Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
What blows me away about the defenders of this patent is that they seem to believe a company should be able to recoup their costs in any way possible, including expropriating ownership of a person's genetic code without his/her knowledge or consent. Myriad effectively owns a pair of genes (and genes covered under 98 other patents) found in millions of people for the next couple of decades. You can't offer your own breast cancer genes for testing and research, because under a broken patent law, you don't own them. This is the entire reason this testing has to be stopped; Myriad apparently has the legal right to tell people whether they can even look for these genes or not. You don't control the right to use them and provide them to others as you see fit, so no dice giving your tissue for a university for cancer research.
To reiterate: it's not as if Myriad simply patented the testing itself. It patented a gene that is clearly not a unique configuration of matter (found in part of patent law as a way for companies to patent things like molecules), since it's obviously found in millions of people - otherwise, it would be useless as part of a test. They have claimed ownership over a part of millions of people; it may "only" be a gene or two, but this company is using their authority over it to block any kind of testing or research using it. Talk about stifling innovation... it's arguable that this company has effectively stolen a person's ownership over their own genes.
If a government claimed ownership of part of your genetic code and said you couldn't get a certain test without ponying up big money to Big Brother, I bet the people saying "but the company has to recoup their costs" would go into conniptions about a government cash-grab and Big Brother, rightfully.
Go ahead, tell me all about the millions pharmaceuticals pour into research, and how they simply must be compensated... fine. Patent a test. Patent a device used to find the gene. Don't put people into a situation where they discover they don't have control over their own bodies anymore, can't offer their own tissue for testing and research because they don't have the right to something they were born with. Profit is not a right that overrides all other rights, and it doesn't justify, what is effectively, theft of property rights from millions of people to one entity so it can make money.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Wired has an article on Patents and IP today at;
0 .html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55831,0
One of the more interesting quotes
"Abraham Lincoln said that patents added the "fuel of interest to the fire of genius," by promoting the creation of new and useful inventions.
He didn't say that patent laws, or by extension intellectual property laws in general, were created to be cash cows solely for the gain of those with sufficient resources to play the system and intimidate any challengers into inaction."
>I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500
Because you _have_ $3500, dumbass. If you were a millionaire, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem plunking down 500$ for toothpaste every night too.
> Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties?
Said it before, say it again. Most of the groundwork for these discoveries are done using your and my public tax money at universities. Companies research the last mile when they sniff money, and then lock the 'exclusivity' of the test/drug down with a patent. Its a joke. Patents didn't exist years ago, and that didn't prevent humans from discovering new things.
The way people like you talk, scientists and inventors never existed before pay cheques. What a load of hooey.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Which elected official or organization should I contact to rant about this. This is the most terrifying use of a patent I have ever heard of.
Most of the groundwork for these discoveries are done using your and my public tax money at universities.
Govt grants are one thing. Universities on the other hand have every right to patent what they've funded. Provide me with proof that the majority of these patent applications come from public funds and I'll say you have an argument.
About patents not existing "years ago", that is inherently false. Patents have existed for over 400 years, throughout which the entire industrial revolution took place.
Even Galileo patented things
You go out and do R&D on a drug or gene test for some rampant disease, but you do it for free, on your own dollar and your own time. Then lets see what your argument is. I guarentee you'll demand a royalty for your life's work...
If someone makes a million bucks, its usually because they deserve it. This is of course excluding all the Enron corporate corruption issues that are plaguing the economy today. There's nothing better than a self made millionaire because they've produced something and given us all a job.
Fair enough.
2) Determine what a healthy 'wildtype' of the gene looks like.
That's just factual information, no reason that should be patenable any more than the colour of the sky.
3) Catalog and determine the effect of thousands of mutations and variants of the gene.... One of the reasons Myriad is HQ'd in Utah is to have access to all the Mormon geneaological records;
So this part is a derivative work based on a database of factual information. That's not a very good basis for a patent either.
The real solution is to define a seperate category of patent for genes, genetic testing, et al.
No, that's the trap they want you to fall into. By assuming that the patent system does not protect these things already you are pushed into accepting unneeded and unreasonable extensions. As you pointed out, the detection is a chemical process which can already be patented. Almost every genetic "breakthrough" involves such a process and thus is covered by the existing patent system in a fair way.
There is no more reason to allow patenting of genes than there was to allow the inventor of the deep-mine lift-winder a patent on coal.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Govt grants are one thing. Universities on the other hand have every right to patent what they've funded. Provide me with proof that the majority of these patent applications come from public funds and I'll say you have an argument.
No, he's right.
The company could be patenting drugs that make use of the knowledge as a treatment, without holding a patent on the actual gene. They could even try patenting a particular method of testing for the gene, but then an alternate testing wouldn't infringe. But, as the gene can be tested without manufacturing or offering for sale the patented "invention", I don't know how they exactly would even have an infringement suit. Maybe bio patents are under different laws, but I thought they were just an interpretation of existing patent law.
I'm glad Ontario is giving them the finger. This is just sick.
> If someone makes a million bucks, its usually because they deserve it.
.. I'm not sure I understand why I inherently need to be able to charge royalties for my work.
..
/. artcle a few weeks back about how universities frequently patent their work so that companies can use them, but never the other way around?) But companies can take this research, tinker with it, spend a shitload of trials (ah yes, the Hit and Miss approach of drug trials ... *very* innovative!), and patent and market the trial winners. The shoulders of giants that companies stand on are the shoulders of public research.
Oh boy, theres the problem. Grab a psyche text book, look up "The Just World" syndrome.
You're assuming your system promotes and demotes people (based on wealth, I'm guessing you'd say) as they deserve it.
Problem being, kinda hard to know if the AIDS cure researcher deserves to be, say, twice as rich as the Cancer researcher.
In fact, all political or economical dissention would be useless if your charge that "People who deserve to be rich become rich, except for those who dont deserve it because they're corrupted." were true! We could always assume our system encourages the right kind of behaviour and rewards the right people/actions. Dangerous assumption.
> I guarentee you'll demand a royalty for your life's work...
I'd ask for a salary. But nobody forced me to do the work, so asking for a reward over the reward of actually doing it (and making some sort of living)
Mind you, yes, when you're investing millions of dollars, I need _assurance_ that those millions of dollars will be returned to my organzation in order to justify the capital I used to discover something.
Yet again though, we find outselves nearing an event horizon. Theres no 'absolute' minimum or maximum amount of capital that I should have access to, to develop these drugs. If I figure I can probably find the cure for cancer faster, with another half a billion dollars, but my investors won't invest unless I am assured royalties for 150 years (ie, need more patent protection to justify investment and improve ROI), should I be able to lobby congress for stronger protection just because *I* want to invest more money/time into research?
I hope you can see the slipperly slope here. You sound like you assume things are the way they are because thats the most sane and just way, but I can assure you that history makes a mockery of that stance time and time again. When you strengthen patents, you weaken the efforts of other scientists other than the Self, so you're not inherently helping discover a cure simply by virtue of working towards it with the knowledge that you'll get paid the mad money when you make your discovery. At some point, you demanding royalty for your work taints the very reasearch community your working in, and the market who may or may not be able to afford your drug when you market it. And what good is promoting discovery when nobody can make use of it? To bring back the psychology, people suffer when life-bettering technology is available but they are unable to afford it. I know it would depress the shit out of me, that I was some 2nd class citizen not deserving of the fruits of humankinds labour
> Provide me with proof that the majority of these patent applications come from public funds and I'll say you have an argument.
Oh, the patent applications come from companies. But X% of the research that leads to commercial produts are done by universities. (Did you miss that
Incidentally, I was aware patents have been around for centuries, but dont forget that technology has allowed the patent culture to be far more anal in terms of enforcability. Our very ability to adhere more closely to our perceived ideal systems is beginning to show the faults in those systems.
"Old man yells at systemd"
that investigates the occurance of said genes in the
BC population. It could be funded by the health services.
Patents cannot prevent research use.
They could also provide the patients with an opportunity to do the tests themselves. Although that is less feasible.
Patents cannot restrict private use.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
Yeah, it's not like any truly innovative discovery or method would result is being paid big lecture fees, possible Nobel Prize nominations, textbook royalties, or anything. Especially in the areas of deadly diseases, right? Yeah, of all the biology and med students I've met throughout college, none of them ever had the desire to cure/detect a disease that killed a best friend or family member -- they simply wanted to own new home in the burbs, with a 4-car garage and have a SUV in eash stall.
It's bloody greed (on a corporate level, more likely, than a personal scientist one), plain and simple. I was driving to work about a year ago and listening to NPR. One of the quick news blurbs was that some huge drug company's board had decided to can all further research on treatment for some really bad disease (multiple sclerosis, I think). Why? Because one of the patents on the process was about to expire!
"Mr. chairman, I vote we stop all research into this horrible, degenerative disease because we won't be able to recoup our costs. No, the fact that our Viagra clone and hair regeneration products will cover the costs tenfold -- we need to spend that money on TV commercials and free samples to physicians."
Method of processing duck feet
Are you claiming that the poster is promoting hatred of the US because they're suggesting that there are people who hate the US? That would be a bit odd.
P.S. Could you, by any chance, avoid making claims about logical assessment in posts that you're going to later make ad hominem attacks in?
If there is no monetary incentive to do research of this type, it just won't get done. You can't compel people to become scientists or to work in a given field in free country, you have to entice them and that means with money. Then on top of that there is the masive materials cost for this kind of research. If we adopt a policy of just taking away patents whever it suits us, the research will just stop.
Now there are other ways, for example the research could be all government funded via tax dollars, with the condition that anything discovered was then public domain since the public had paid for its creation. This is along the lines of what I'd like to see.
However you can't just deny private companies the ability to make money from their expensive discoveries, or they will just quit doing it and get into another market.
Yes it should be, but those middlemen have been busy buying off lawmakers to see that this never happens. ;-) The common good doesn't even factor into it as long as corporate special interests are keen to keep their gravy-train on track.
>>So, that is why "they" attacked Australians in Bali? Is that why "they" attacked Christian Pakastanis in Pakistan? Is that why "they" attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel (while the flight of the missiles, not coincidentally, missed Jordan)?
None of these countries are really what I'd interpret "the west" to cover: North and South America and Western Europe. And, although all of these countries are relatively friendly with western countries, they're also all friendly with the US. So they don't seem to support your claim one way or the other.
So, maybe I'm a little dense today, but what do you mean by "the west"?
The Human Genome Project simply puts biologists and chemists in the general neighborhood for identifiers. It does not by any means isolate diseases.
Not only does it put them in the general neighborhood, but it gives them money to live and support their families while giving their time to research. It finances the research that these patents have built their foundations on. These corporations are just going the last yard and reaping all the money, at the public expense coming and going. That's the patent system at its worst.
No, they are patenting the technique of looking for that gene for the sake of identifying a future cancer victim.
That is as sleazy as it gets. Just as Congress prohibits patenting devices whose primary purpose is illegal, it should prohibit patenting applications that the public should have a right to, straight out of the gate. Or put in place a system of nationalizing / eminiment domaining patents in the public good, with fair compensation. And before you cry me an economic libertarian river, governments (and EL's) have no problem nationalizing the private property of the *poor* for things like new stadiums, they just balk at taking away things from people with money.
And I don't believe this would cause a stagnation of research, because the research is largely being done at the public expense, and corporations could still find ways to patent effective treatments (although if they are as greedy SOBs in that arena as they are in testing procedures, those could conceivably be ED'd as well). If corporations couldn't find a way to turn a buck based on such a large amount of publicly-financed research, then screw em. We the people will get the same treatments and drugs, patent free, a little later, and be better for it.
I keep seeing the concept that, somehow, there is this sacrosanct bubble of massive profitability surrounding 'ideas' or 'creativity' that must never ever be tampered with lest it pop and we are swept back into the Dark Ages covered with pox because our artists stop singing, actors stop acting, programmers stop coding and biochemists throw their hands up in despair because they're surrounded by a world of need without any financial means to create. It is as ridiculous as the idea we simply give everything away. There is a happy medium involving slightly more modest returns and the deaths of a few million fewer people, once we embrace the idea that philantrophy can come ahead of luxury.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Yeah excpt the company with the patent didn't develop the test. They have a patent on the gene, which they're using to control the test - which existed beforehand. They've done squat to advance medical science.
but I don't care. I'm pretty pissed off about this.
You can't patent a gene; it's design was created either by 1) Evolution, 2) a Higher Power, or 3) Some combination of 1&2.
As a British-Columbian with a wife, sister, mother-in-law, aunts, etc, who might have to travel 3000 miles for testing to determine if they carry either of these genes, I'd like to say to Myriad Genetics, Fuck You.
Here we have a potentially life-saving process. This is a process that could potentially save thousands of lives over the next few years. Unfortunately, this process is not accessible because some idiots in Utah claim they own the genes that need to be tested!
Another example of a US company forcing its bogus concepts of IP on people even though it does more harm than good, in another country, even.
Even though I'm not typically for more laws, in the US we really need some sort of law in place that states quite simply that: (1) Genes can not be patented. Put all genes in the public domain. (2) Companies that own the patents of processes that could potentially save lives in this manner should make them available at reasonable cost to people who need them rather than gouging the heck out of people.
Why is it likely we won't see this sort of law? Probably because congress is getting lined pockets from people who want to patent stuff that has been around since the dawn of humanity.
As for people outside of the United States, I urge you to voice to your governments that US patents like this should be ignored.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
This argument might hold water if it wasn't for the fact the company didn't develop the test, only claimed a patent on the gene sequence.
It goes to the original link.
This, however, seems to be clearly a patent on a gene, according to the claims section. It appears to be related to the patent linked originally.
It's a bit hard to tell what patents are related in what way, aside from the references section. Either way, it reads like Myriad's patenting general testing procedures, results, and genes, trying to gain a monopoly on breast cancer research.
It's worth noting the "Assignees" on both patents. If I understand correctly, "assignees" are the entities that actually own the patent, usually the organizations the inventors work for and have likely signed contracts with automatically assigning all products of their work:
Assignee: Myriad Genetics, Inc. (Salt Lake City, UT); University of Utah Research Foundation (Salt Lake City, UT); The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health (Washington, DC)
So it appears Myriad isn't the only owner of the patent, but perhaps the University of Utah has transferred their control to Myriad, and is it possible for the USA to hold patents, since it also gives them out through another body?
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Looking for details on the patent I got the page with the abstract. No one wonder these things get through. Its enough to let anyone want to skip over it and just patent the damn thing.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Agreed. If there was not incentive to make money, Myriad would not have developed the procedure at all. This represents several years of work, and they have to pay it back somehow.
Unless you are a patent lawyer, don't expect to understnd the patent by simply reading it. By the way, they have more than one patent with resepect to these genes.
In fact the patents are extremely broad in application and forbid any other institution (hospital, lab, etc) from conducting the test for diagnostic purposes in the clinical setting.
It is not that they have patented a technique to find mutations in these genes (like a particular testing protocol), but instead patented the use of any diagnostic test to find mutations in these genes because they would be comparing the mutatnt sequence against the patented sequence they have.
Your point about the Mormon records is completely irrelevant. There are many research groups that understand what is and what isn't a mutation.
Myriad also would not have found the gene if other, publiclly funded, research had not been completed before they threw money at the situation. The most difficult issue was to find out what portion of what chromosome the gene was on. They did not do this. Running the sequencers day and night to pinpoint it only requires money.
You are corect, performing a diagnostic test for the 2 genes involved (BRCA1, BRCA2) is not complicated and can be performed via a number of procedures. However, the Myriad patent, if enforced completely, would only allow their test to be used. A test that misses some mutations that would be picked up by other types of analyses. See large deletions as stated in the European attack on the patent.
Absolutely. I have no problem with patents on inventions, such as a particular way to isolate a gene. I don't accept that a gene is a invention and I don't accept that anyone else should be blocked from developing a different process for the same genes.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Have you ever seen the movie Unbreakable? It could just be that you and I are arch-nemesis' of each other.
...
Considering our polar viewpoints on alot of things that's entirely possible. Also, we're very civil towards each other. The best super-hero/super-villain combinations are very civil with each other. Superman and Lex Luthor, Dr. Xavier and Magneto, etc
There may be something to this bizarre synchronicity theory of yours.
Sure. After all, Salk, Fleming, and Pastuer were only in it for the mondo dollars.
The US scrapped Army Plan Red (plans to invade Canada) in 1937.
These were, of course, military plans that you keep in file folders "just in case". (Somewhere there's a file folder for just about anywhere. Wattalottaland? Right here sir!)
Now if only someone had a file folder with how to defend against US patent law, DMCA, the RIAA and MPAA, etc, that we are being pressured to swing into line on.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Couldn't the guy claim prior art? :^)
It's a tricky call -- on the one hand, research is good and should be rewarded. On the other, some companies seem to be doing a bit of "gene-squating". They don't have to do research; they own the gene, and anyone who does want to do research or develop new treatments has to pay them. Human genetics as IP makes me nervous.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
No argument there. If companies do the cash grab, then universities are kind of forced to do so, since prices for the equipment for research are going to be set by the market, including these wealthy drug companies. If companies get richer and richer, equipment makers can charge more, and universities find themselves unable to afford to continue leading edge research without following the lead of companies.
"Old man yells at systemd"
On the contrary, I never said that this guy was NOT potentially sleazy for what he's charging. I merely stated that we do NOT KNOW the cost of the research involved. Average drug costs $800M to develop... who knows how much went into finding the significance of this gene. Biotech is nowhere near cheap, so we really do not know if this person(s) is taking advantage of those poor oppressed Canadians. We also do NOT know that public funding even touched the research on this. We also do NOT know whether this person contributed to the public funding. What we DO know is that this guy needs to make a living and needs to cover the costs of the developments. This is Capitalism and it works for a reason. If we kicked this guy in the balls by not letting him make a profit in the past, then you'd be pissed when you came down with prostate cancer and had no way of predicting it because you removed his motivation and drive to make a buck. It is inherently common sense.
Note: When I refer to this person, you can substitute any company/organization in the industry.
Basically, these kinds of patents are not significantly different from patents on diagnostic criteria. It's similar to patenting "a method for diagnosing sunburn by observing a reddening of the skin and asking the patient about recent sun exposure".
Are we going to have other (non genetic) diagnostic criteria patented as well now?
Well, it's a tax issue if you agree that it's the government's job to pay for healtcare.
1. It doesn't encourage personal accountability in form of healthy lifestyle choices. If I never smoke, drink, or do drugs, and concentrate on positive activities instead - eating a healthy diet, exercising regularly, etc. - I still pay for everyone who doesn't.
2. Healthcare is a captive market. People have a natural tendency to avoid having to check out early, thus making it very easy for any commercial interest to take advantage of the situation- and they do. This is why the US gov has been known to pay three times the market rate for the same item to a healthcare provider under one plan, than it does under another. This is also why an insurance company can raise its rates 17% in just one year without blinking an eye, why pharmaceutical companies can rape their customers and get paid to do it, and why this whole mess will really get ugly once all the gene patenting nonsense starts to take hold.
What does all this mean? Who knows? It wouldn't bother me to see a healthcare meltdown, akin to the dot-com bust. Things are way out of control, and it's quite possible that anything short of a massive realignment won't have much of an effect, as there are just too many entrenched interests.
Welcome to the emerging world of the corporation. Where nothing is more important than profit.
Personally I think that the people who run the corporations that would allow people to die in order to bolster their bottom line are committing a crime against humanity. I also believe in making the punishment fit the crime. Hmmmm.... How about we have their ears surgically altered to make them look like the profit motivated Startrek race. The Farengee?? (spelling?)
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
It all looks good until you live under it.
Tell it to a family friend that had to pay to fly to the US for heart surgery because he was put on a waiting list in the BC. According to his own doctor that waiting list what his death certificate. Where do most Canadians go for heart care?
It is also amazing what is considered elective surgery under socialized medice. Reconstructive knee surgey, 6 month wait - even if you can walk and the damage gets worse as you wait.
Crumbling hospitals, ask the UK.
the US health costs are out of control not because we don't have socialized medicine but because trial lawyers are draining the system dry. Without tort reform even socialized medicine will get clobbered. So, why is it that Democrat proposed socialized medicine would clamp down suits but until then they say its unfair to limit damages? Simple, they want to break the system.
Given the choice of socialized to what the US has, after getting the real stories from friends of family AND family - forget it, I will stick with the US system
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
For those wildly speculating or just wondering about the research races, patent conundrums, ethical dilemmas and personalities involved, the book Curing Cancer : Solving One of the Greatest Medical Mysteries of Our Time, by Michael Waldholz, covers the race for BRCA-1 (the first gene really linked to hereditary breast cancer) up to about 1995. The founders of Myriad are an important part of the story, and it's an interesting read.
;-) ).
I have been friends with key founding personnel of Myriad for over 30 years now, and I believe they are sincerely devoted to improving humankind's lot. Although the ethical issues raised are very sticky, there would not have been a good gene test to be fighting over so soon if it were not for their research. But Myriad is now a public company, and unfortunately the almighty buck (a.k.a. stockholder value) governs their decisions much more than in the early, research-oriented days of the company. I think the failing is not with Myriad's medical ethics, but with the insanely high quarterly returns that are demanded of public companies, regardless of any Bad Things that may result for society (and/or Canada
You shall see a cow on the roof of a cotton house.
Isn't there about a billion years of prior art? If that doesn't matter, then I will make a killing by patenting the numbers 0 through 9.
Well, I'm sorry to hear that. I'm sure that in Candada you are very happy to rely on US protection. However, as a citizen of Canada, I find the looming US giant more oppressive than protective.
And as another note, Canada IS often more liked as a country (whether by deserved reputation or not). We may have to protect ourself against crackpots, but the police tend to handle those. As for other countries, most of them tend to be a little more friendly towards Canada than the US, probably due to a more practiced policy of non-interference.
With several friends in other countries, most of whom have visited the US and Canada, I have to say that the North does often tend to be friendlier. And having less people pissed off at one's country is often its own little ounce of prevention right there.
Wouldn't it be nice if one of those cybermillionairs out there (and there are some left) would pledge $5 million to fight this patent in court. The idea that a company should be able to patent a gene and charge for access to it is obscene. This is not business, it's robbery. To compare this company's actions to the legitimate recouping of R&D is ridiculous.
That there are people in BC not getting this test because of this company's actions should be sufficient to land the executives and lawyers of this company in jail. And the BC government should also be condemed. For lack of a better term, they not have the balls to look out for the well being of their people.
Are YOU going to develop cancer treatments for free? My bet is you're too lazy to and not get paid. There are bigger priorities when playing russian roullette, like Child's education, food on the table, rent, car payments, etc. All requiring an income. It doesn't matter WHO you know who died of HIV, Cancer, Ebola, etc, because if there is no monetary incentive to work towards a cure, it simply will not happen at a sustainable pace. There's no argument here, people will only work for money... not whether it saves someone's life or not. Its hypocritical to say otherwise, unless your ass is volunteering your time and effort 40 hours/week, 52 wks/yr to the needy, but I bet you're not!!! ... And if you are, then you're either extremely loaded and given your share to society and can sustain yourself or you're a leach of society.
Let's ignore the fact that patenting a discovery that is part of nature is plain stupid now (it made sense to encourage genomic research in the early days - now any jackass with a PCR machine and a grad student can discover new genes) With that assumption in mind, for your point to be valid these companies would have had to actually invest in the discovery. Usually what happens is that the genome-looters discover these genes using government funds. They then turn around and start a company to market their spoils.
This reminds me of my first week of med school. We were presented with hypothetical scenarios followed by questions to test our outlook on social and ethical issues (I think we were the control group) One of the scenarios involved the lone pharmacist in a remote town who had the only drug that could cure a man's wife. The pharamcist has priced the drug over an above a fair profit (like a markup of 300% or so), which placed it way above the man's reach. One of the questions was whether the man was right to break into the pharmacy and steal the drug. Everyone I talked to agreed the guy had a right to do so (maybe all my friends are pinkos). The point is we should strive to be civilized humans working for the good of all, not greedy capitalists/Ferengi (gratuitous STtNG ref for /.). Unfortunately most of us have been brainwashed since birth that socialism is evil and capitalism = freedom.
You're missing the point, kevlar. Everyone repeat after me:
More quotes from kevlar: If anyone could test for these genes without paying royalties, then the guy who made the discovery will not have ANY incentive to do the same in the future!Is this guy doing research for the sake of his own back pocket, or is he doing it to help others? If the former, he should be denied the patent on moral grounds. If the latter, your argument doesn't hold any weight, since supposedly helping others is the incentive.
Now on another note, the Canadian health system has much worse problems than this patent issue. If my mother/father died of cancer and I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500.
That is, of course, your choice. Just please don't force it on the rest of us, OK?
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
This couldn't happen if some congressional pockets weren't being lined in the first place.
On this point I agree. Here's some food for thought: bribes don't affect the Justices of the US Supreme Court, because the office holds a lifetime appointment. They shouldn't affect the President or the Legislature in the ideal, but they do since these are elected offices. In other words, expect Congress and the President to screw up. At least we've got a (theoretically) unimpeachable backup in place to control the damage.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Almost all dental in england is private now anyway. ( For wage earners). And the waiting times are very short.
True about the hospital waiting times though. Most residents here blame mismanagement rather than the government nature of the NHS.
------
kevlar wrote:
On the contrary. Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties? How will this encourage research? Money drives the world for a reason. Now I admit that $3500 to test for a certain gene is quite steep, but we do not know how much money was put-forth to determine the offending genes.
-----------
This breast cancer gene--like most of the genes that have been discovered and researched to the point where we can understand the biological role that they play--was discovered mainly using public research funds. That's big Pharma's dirty little secret: university researchers, supported by public institutions like the National Institutes of Health, do most of the basic research leading to understanding of genes, function, and drug discovery. Towards the end of this process, which can take a decade or more and tends to meander based on the individual researcher's interest, the researcher may apply for a patent on the discovery. However, the researcher knows that he/she cannot take the discovery beyond this stage--someone else needs to find a commercial use, do the patient testing, apply to the FDA, etc. So the researcher sets up a small company that is then usually acquired by a larger Pharma co. The Pharma then turns the discovery into a commercial product. This costs money, yes, and sometimes a lot of money if drug tests are involved, but the main point is that the company is commercializing a discovery *paid for by public funds*.
In Myriad's case, production of the test would have been relatively cheap--no Phase I/II/III trials that drugs require. So they're not operating on much of a discovery loss and, based on the way the test is conducted, I can swear to you that it doesn't cost them anywhere near $3500 per sample, even when you include all the overhead costs that go into a lab. They're making a killing.
Somehow people seem to think that medicine comes from some magic wand that costs nothing to wave so we can have infinite research, development, production, etc. for zero or nominal cost.
;)
Nobody thinks that drugs should be free. They do think they could be made a lot cheaper than they are. And it'd be a lot more convincing when the pharamaceuticals deny this if they weren't spending twice as much on marketing as on R&D.
I mean, really, doesn't it seem a little off to be complaining of being crushed by one expense when there's another 2 1/2 times bigger?
Why are most of those drugs developed here and not in France, Mexico, or even Japan? Or even Canada? Canada is free to spend more on its health care developing its own drugs (will THEY give them to the US for free or below cost?).
Because we have the most developed pharmaceutical industry. Is that because we pump the most dollars into our medical care? Or is it because of the benefits of this country's tech industry? Or is it because of our higher education system producing the best engineers? Or is it because free trade with us means no Canada-only pharmaceuticals can get a grip there? You may as well ask why Canada doesn't produce as many cars. You haven't show cause and effect.
Meanwhile, our military does protect Canada, while it lets in terrorists and even gives them welfare so they have more time to figure out ways of killing US Citizens.
Protects Canada from whom? I'd like to point out that all these terrorists manage to make it the whole way through Canada without blowing anything up. Canada isn't their target. We're protecting nobody but ourselves.
And besides, we give our terrorists green cards even after they've commited acts of terror, so who are we to point fingers?
Personally, I think we should not be an empire, but if we are, our "friends" should recognize what it means to them.
What are you even saying here? Are you saying that Canada should be grateful for us being an empire that we shouldn't be if in fact we are?
The enemies of Democracy are
If they claim to 'own' the gene, or to have 'invented' the gene, then they must be responsible for its effects. Every woman who has developed cancer because of this gene should be able to sue the company.
MrCreosote Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump!Meow!Thump! "You're right! There isn't enough room to swing a cat in here!"
So what if a University made the discovery? Last I checked, Universities were synonymous with Corporations. This is one of the reasons why Princeton's endowment is so huge that they could essentially run the school without charging tuition and still not lose money.
Part of Nature? Yes, it is. But what they have discovered is a gene that when located in a person's body will identify whether or not they'll develop cancer. This is a BIG HUGE DEAL. The years that went into this development are at a cost. The company needed to employ multiple PhD's and support staff and sequence mostlikely millions of genes to isolate this one. That all comes at a cost. If we want companies to FIND things like this, we need to provide them with an INCENTIVE!
Drug companies invest on average $800M in EACH drug they produce. This is NOT including any losses from FDA denials or lawsuits they may incur. It takes massive effort to produce these things and it all costs money. The Open Source model will never be able to be applied en masse to this type of research without heavy monitary donations. It takes equipment, people, resources. If we all relied on donated time and goods then we'd all be waiting in lines for toilet paper each week b/c thats essentially communism in essence.