Slashdot Mirror
Ontario Ignores Gene Patent
Anonymous Coward writes "Well, for once my government the Ontario Tories have done something right. You see, there's this cancer test that involves a gene sequence patented in Utah. Thankfully, my goverment decided to
ignore the patent and help out those who need it. Ah the joys of living in such a liberated country." Different provinces have made different decisions about this particular patent.
See subject.
Ah the joys of living in such a liberated country
You'll be less pleased when GWB names Canada as a new member of the Axis of Evil in his upcoming State of the Union address because of your "intellectual terrorism".
...they can ignore patents, but not my collection of unpaid parking tickets. ;)
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
I sympathize with the questions raised about genetic patents, and worry more generally much more about the threat of profiteering by companies that develop life-or-death health technologies, and the plight of people who can't afford essential care.
But here, the poster is complimenting getting a free ride on the work of others. This is not "liberated" thinking, it is merely a bid to save money. It does not take a lot of imagination to project that too many free rides will lead to few if any rides.
Surely there is a middle ground, compensating the developers as one would for a new drug, while avoiding the trickier implications of patents on genes. When it comes to money, this action is no different than immediately making a generic version of a newly developed drug.
I agree, this is just plain greedy.
I want to add that the impoverished African and South American nations that ignore patents, being primarily agrarian economies, also don't benefit from international patents of their own. Canada, as part of the first world, relies heavily on technology and patents to bring wealth into its borders. To ignore international patents is for them nothing more than the basest hypocrisy.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
Perhaps developing life-saving "technology", like genes, should not be done by coprations striving only for profit for their shareholders? People who are sick or perhaps dying will not listen stupid analogies about cars being stolen. According to some, I seem to remember, the business of a state was to see after the well being of it's citizens, not the well-being patent-driven pharamceutical companies located in other countries.
If you can give me any example or argument where money is more important than life, I will eat my hat.
Wouldn't that mean that just by having that gene sequence you are violating their patent? I can see how they can patent the method to test for this gene pattern, but not the gene pattern itself.
I've decided to take out a patent on combing two parts of hydrogen with one part of oxygen. Don't like it? Tough.
Since we all have prior art on the human genome, shouldn't it be "open source"?
This is an important distinction.
If they patented the gene, it is already existing naturally, there is no reasonable infringement.
If they patented the procedure to detect the gene, they shoul get the benefit of their research (assuming it is a valid patent).
If they patented the gene as a method to predict cancer, then the arguement is quite murky. Finding cancer by looking for it is obvious. Finding cancer by looking for other unrelated factors is probaly a valid patent.
If this gene sequence is related to cancer (causative or a result of) then it is related to the having of cancer (like cough due to cold).
Maybe they just have a good patent lawyer.
Proud to be in a country that does this. Now if only Canada:
(1) Ignores all copyrights on MS Windows
(2) Leaves the ranks of GWB's warmonger party..
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
That is not the argument. (mind you with this post I take neither side of the argument, Im just explaining it)
The arguement is that if the gene patents are not respected then companies who make money off of those patents will stop developing the "life-saving technology". And we all know that if it didnt make any money they really would stop development. The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them; and who gets to ignore the patents if it is still profitable with just a few soverign untities ingoreing them. So Retards(not a flame, the guys sn is retards) no one is saying that money is more important than life, in fact its being said that if you ignore the patent fewer lives will be saved in the long run because of someones hasty shortsighted good intentions.
Now the real other side to the arguenet is (note: I have already debunked the money vs life argument): What are the implications of being able to patent a gene. Can I patent a gene that already exists in nature, can I patent a life form? Can I sue you if somehow my patented gene gets into your crops/products/whatever? What if I have patented a gene ahead of other reasearchers and refuse to lisence it to poorer nations at a reasonable price? What if my patented gene gets into another crop/product/whatever and causes damage? Am I responsible legally for that damage? What if someone not from my company did the contaminating?
Could the academic communtiy produce these "Life saving technologies" in the time and quantity that the corperations do. Probably not. But would more lives be saved with fewer, but freer technologies ?
All of these things are very important questions, some of which have disturbing answers. Both sides of the arguement have very valid points. Dont be a party politics person. Be a moderate and consider all sides of every arguement. Chances are if people are argueing about it, there are important points on both sides of the arguement that are woth worrying about.
The answer is almost always a compromise. Restrictions on lisence fees, restrictions on length of patent protection, exceptions to the protection, etc. Corperations do often have bad intentions, but unintentionally produce alot of good in the world. That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Gene sequences can be patented in the US and many other countries because the naturally occurring sequences have "junk DNA" intervening between chunks of "coding DNA" that contain the actual genetic information. So a natural gene might look like this:
AxxxBxxxxCxxxxxxxxxD
where the x's represent the junk.
The patented gene sequence would look like this:
ACBD
So, you would not violate a company's patent by having the naturally occurring gene in your body.
The idea is to reward the effort it takes to identify what a gene does and isolate the sequence needed to reproduce the protein the gene codes for.
Now, when it was hard to do that, a patent might be warranted. Whether that is still the case now that it is quite easy to identify coding regions and sort-of "reverse engineer" what the gene does by sticking the code into a mouse, or removing the mouse's version, etc etc etc., and now that all the methods are very well known to someone "versed in the art," is a matter of much debate.
Start eating your hat. There is a limited amount of money to pay for health care. Should the government pay for tests for breast cancer genes (which don't always lead to breast cancer), or should the government try to reduce heart disease in women? Heart disease kills far more women than breast cancer does.
Should the government spend millions trying to prevent every single death? The government would soon be bankrupt, and some deaths are simply not preventable today.
If you take away patent protection, medical research by for-profit companies will dry up overnight.
Of course, there is some medical research by non-profits, charities and the government, but it is far less than the amount spent by private industry.
More importantly, the company can hire a decent lawyer, and slap the provincial government with a big lawsuit, and quickly win lots of money that could otherwise be used to provide health care.
Awesome.. i whole heartdly support them..
here's the real kicker..
"The tests cost about $1,100 each but Myriad, which also holds gene patents for screening of colon and prostate cancers, wants all tests done at its own laboratory at triple the cost."
Cost of healthcare is high enough.. and don't tell me they aren't making a dime when a test costs $1,100 each to begin with, not only that but cancer testing will remain IN CANADA, not in a foreign (not like the US is far away) country.
Sickens me to see my tax dollars wasted, but this is one good sign. With several relatives either gone because of cancer, or currently have cancer, prescreening is important and makes curing and treating cancer that much more possible.
- Happy Canadian flippin the bird at stupid US patents.
i think that argument has failed before: "it's okay because it's for a good cause" ... i'd prefer someone just stand up and say "no, it's a stupid idea in the first place, just ignore all such things."
as stated by many, patenting a method for detecting a gene is one thing -- keeping other researchers from using home-grown methods to find that same gene is another. and claiming the gene for themselves is just right out.
patents were designed to give those who invested in research a return on those same investments, by giving them a temporary edge on the market. i believe it's important to reward such research, especially in the medical field. it's sad to see anyone, rich or poor, suffering from disease.
in the end, though, we must remember that both patents and copyrights were designed to override the default rule: we all own information of this sort. they are not permissions for us to have this knowledge after a time -- they are permission to keep it private for personal gain for a limited time. they are incentives, not inalienable rights.
do you support what could become (or is) extortion? inexcusably high fees for access to patented methods? life on the life, too bad, pay up? do you support, from the medical field, the practice of not revealing life-saving information for personal gain?
questions like this are -not- to be answered with the robin hood argument. whether 'tis for the rich or the poor, the same question must be answered -- what is the value of life?
They patented a gene sequence. A sequence that probably exists, and has existed in millions of women for thousands of years. It's like patenting a phallic shaped appendage that dangles from approximately 1 of every 2 individuals, or blue tinted irises in the eyes of North American males. It's a ridiculous, prohibitive patent and I applaud my government for telling this corporation to stick it.
If, and only if, the patent covers the specific methods by which to identify the presence of these sequences I will agree that there should be some renumeration to the corporation, but it's unreasonable to expect to have patients shipped down to Utah (on whose nickel, I might add?) to perform the tests at triple the cost they could be performed here at home. Why can't the company atleast permit the tests to be performed locally with royalties transferred to the company?
Myriad is being completely unreasonable, and I really hope the Ontario government wins and sets a precedent against gene sequence patents. Nobody has the right to patent something that's existed in my body since my conception; period.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
Should the government pay for tests for breast cancer genes (which don't always lead to breast cancer), or should the government try to reduce heart disease in women? Heart disease kills far more women than breast cancer does.
... or was it just one.
Your argument about breast cancer is not about money, but about human resources. The government is not a corporation. A corporation developing a drug is not trying to save lives, but to make money. I'm sure the actual developers (the people working) are trying to do good, but not the financers. Besides, if it was deemed all-important to find all breast cancer growths, the government could force all doctors do check people for free. People have been drafted for worse ends. I hardly see anybody except the company who designed the "idea" losing money if they aren't paid.
If you take away patent protection, medical research by for-profit companies will dry up overnight.
Riiiight... just like the media and software business will die without Draconian Copyright Laws. Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that perhaps there should be more non-profit research and less for-profit.
I do realize that this is a rather unpopular method and has it's problems. However, patents are only good as long as they are respected. If someone was to develop The Super Drug (TM) that cured everything, and wanted $100 000 a pop, I really doubt anyone would listen.
No matter what, it is still each sovereign country's own damn business how they choose to enforce their laws, so if a government feels that an international patent is not valid within the borders of that country, well, it isn't.
More importantly, the company can hire a decent lawyer, and slap the provincial government with a big lawsuit, and quickly win lots of money that could otherwise be used to provide health care.
Yes, there are some places in the world where this is possible.
Just because the system seems to be working right now doesn't mean it's the best, or even a good one.
You can patent a method.
Lets suppose much baldness is cause by a gene, please neglect the obviousness of my idea.
Method to predict future baldness.
Look for gene XXX in subject, if found, they will become bald.
Analyse biological relatives for baldness, if many are bald, the subject will likely become bald.
Baldness genes are in masturbatory semen, if the father watches too much pornography, the subject will have a higher likeliehood of baldness.
These "methods for detecting baldness", depend on the discovered science. But that does not mean they are not methods for doing something.
Discovery is a vauge term, and patent law doesn't state you can't patent discoveries, it defines what you may patent.
The question is now how many countries (or states or what-have-you) have to ignore the patents before it is no longer profitable to develope them
True, it is however questionable if it's a good idea to allow these patents to be profitable without bounds. A lot of research could be done with government grants, requiring the result be given to the public domain, for example. The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy. Companies make money, even though lots of software is unlicensed and a lot of movies and music are ripped; they just don't make as much as they want to make.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
That is the whole concept of capitalism, to use natural tendencies to do good and to create a system with checks and balances that converges (hopefully) on the perfect system (if very slowly maybe).
Perhaps, but I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal. For example, even though it is very cheap and thus economically "wise" to manufacture clothes in sweatshops in Asia, it is hardly the best solution. Poverty in one place is an asset for others with economic interrest. And since your debunking of my argument relied one paragraph and one idea, so will mine of yours.
First off, I am against large pharmaceutical companies profitting off of the sick and dying. But before heralding this as a victory for freedoms, the flipside also deserves some consideration. Like it or not, research into cures for diseases require money, period. This research is very expensive, and thus so are the resulting products. I can understand trying to cut excessive profiteering on new found medicines(or tests in this case) but if any nation can afford to pay some cash for the research that was done, surely we Canadians are one of those nations... Unless of course the price asked was in American dollars :)
The argument for enforcement of patents is not dissimilar from software or media piracy.
I disagree. Comanies always want more money. I think the scenario here is that its not really ok to copy music/video/etc (though we all do), but its also not ok, and much worse, to impose a fascist policy to stop it. If you can police it through normal means go ahead, but if you have to create all kinds of new laws that take away the rights of the citizens, then you have to find another way, or find a new business model.
In my opinion a society is in very big trouble the second it's citizens realize that the answer to the question "Am I going to die?" is "Do you have money?".
Whether or not you are right, Its always been that way to some degree and will continue to be. You could follow a communist philosophy (and I dont mean this as a flame) and try to make sure everyone gets equal treatment, but very likely (as we have seen) the total number of people (as well as total quality of help) goes down dramatically and still there will be those with more that will get better help.
As far as the sweatshop question is concerned, I seem to have a very different view of the situation. I see the problem is not the wages these people are paid, but the danger that they face with the machinery. All in all it is my belief that over all they are better off with the work that corperations bring to their countries. These people would otherwise need to work somewhere else and no doubt for less money. With companies seting up factories into these countries more money is being dumped into their economies. I think they must go through their industrial revolution as we went through ours as painful as it might be (it was for us also). Yes there are bad things that happen, but in the long run (I think)the country will be better off.
No I dont believe the companies are taking work to those countries for the good of the people, but I do believe that is the effect.
I dare say that we are very far from that original ideal.
Maybe you are right, but Its hard to see the big picture. I hold some faith in capitalism not because I think those who participate in it have lofty motives, but because the system expects them not to.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
I imagine that there are a number of compainies in Ontario that are wondering if all of their development efforts have been wasted.
Usually, patent treaties and their like are reciprocal. I'll honor yours if you honor mine. I wonder what will happen to the Ontario economy when the US starts to ignore patents filed by residents of Ontario? Regardless of the technical validity, or lack thereof, of gene patenting, frankly it seems that Ontario has much more to lose.
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Ugghhh, FUCK YOU Anonymous Coward! I'm a proud Canadian, and I'm proud of my government's actions. You may show your points up your ass if you want to, but our women deserve being treated in Canada for a fair amount of $$ and not some bloated figures.
THanks.
If the lives of people are more important than the money, why doesn't the Ontario/Canada health care system simply pay the high licensing fees to use the patented technology (assuming it's available for license, and everything is available for license with enough money)?
I don't know. Maybe they think the money can do more good elsewhere? I mean, it's a patent on a method, not an actual tangible product, so if they say bollocks to the patent, they can do the tests and keep their money too.
I'm not saying it's legal, and I sure as hell don't know the true motivation behind the Canadian government. If, however, it's obvious that the fees are too high to be paid, I vote to simply not pay. Money will always find it's way to people, patents or no patents. The World Economy does NOT depend on Intellectual Property, but on the exchange of goods and services. If you are selling something that is overpriced, not worth the investment or just immoral to ask money for, tough shit. Because it's a market economy, remember?
Actually the poster did not miss the point. Everyone is taking this to the extreme, comparing it to theft from the company on one end, and from the other side, saying that genetic patents should be abolished.
The government of Ontario takes neither of these extremes. Their opinion is that if a company ABUSES their patent, and it harms the public good sufficiently, then the government has the right to ignore that patent.
There's enough posts in Slashdot about companies abusing patents, and here's a posting about a government doing something about it.
The message the Ontario government is sending to companies is not your extrememe "Companies can't profit off of their discoveries." Not at all. They're saying "Companies better be fair with how they profit from their patents, or those rights will be taken away."
Not such a bad idea, if you ask me.
Don't pharmaceutical companies have a terrible reputation for dishonesty? Here is a link to a story about Apotex . Short version? Pharmaceutical firms routinely get researchers to sign documents allowing the firm to gag them, if they discover information about the drug that would be bad for business. The lead researcher, in this case, Dr Nancy Olivieri, discovered there was a very harmful side-effect of the drug in question, and wrote letters to the parents of her young experimental subjects. And Apotex went ballistic, and tried to ruin her career.
This is not an isolated case. This kind of thing happens all the time. Usually you don't hear about it because the researchers fold.