Patents Versus Your Health

ethzer0 writes "It's no surprise to the Slashdot crowd that patents are a hot topic these days. But a story on Wired reports that Edwin Stone and Val Sheffield, professors at the University of Iowa, have discovered links between 15 genes and certain eye diseases, which means genetic tests could be developed for the diseases. But often the scientists find the genes or parts of them have already been patented. Any diagnostic test involving a patented gene could infringe on someone's intellectual property."

Comments

God

[thebdj]

I am God the creator almight and I claim all patents on ever gene in every living creature.

How did we get to the point where we can do this? You didn't really do anything but make a discovery of something already existing in nature. You created nothing; so how do you patent what you didn't create?

Re:God

[the eric conspiracy]

Do the work of sequencing the human genome and make it public domain so it wasn't patentable.

That last "so it wasn't patentable" is where you are mistaken. Sure, you can't patent the sequences per se. But if you have a use for that data such as a genetic test for a disease caused by a certain combination of GATTACA, you have patentable material.

It's shameful.

[7-Vodka]

This all happened for the same reason most evils in modern times happen. Powerful, rich people said "hay wouldn't it be nice if we could patent genes so that then we could make a bigger pile of money when someone wants to work with them?"

So they called their friends who set the rules and had them rule that you could patent any gene you wanted..
And they went to work patenting everything they could get their hands on. Cranking the shit out like it was 1999.
Somehow people managed to get their act together and raise a stink about this and the patent office tightened their rules. Now you have to show how you found the gene, what you think it might be useful for etc. But I'm positive these rules are bent around like bamboo sticks.

So now we have all of the squatters who did the original landgrab vs. the legitimate scientists wanting to do real research.

It's obvious what should happen. The landgrabbing squatters (funny applying this term to the already filthy rich corporatists) should be kicked out on their arses and research proper should begin.

Is it going to happen? probably not. Don't forget how this story started, the powerful pulling the strings.

So... what can't I patent.

[jabberjaw]

I am actually being rather serious. If I can patent a gene, what can't a patent? Is it feasible that I could patent a molecule such as dihydrogen monoxide. Could I patent a elementary particle such as the Higgs?

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[FFFish]

There is a BIG difference between patenting a drug that cures a disease, and patenting the disease itself.

I think the latter is where we're heading.

I have some experience in the field..

[SimianOverlord]

..being a molecular biologist. When automated gene sequencers came out, it was possible to screen large numbers of genes for alelles with suspected linkage to various disorders, by comparing large numbers of 'healthy' and 'diseased' sets and hitting the database with various statistical methods. This led to quite a few companies who were doing this patenting whole swathes of genes, but the current opinion is that these patents would not stand up to scrutiny.

In most cases the patent holders have not demonstrated a use for their patent (because they don't know what the gene does without further study), so would lose it. They got a patent, without knowing what a gene does by comparing it to existing genes, looking for similar domains and guessing a functional role i.e. kinase, src homolgy, DNA binding domains like zinc finger motifs, transmembrane helices etc. etc.

Another point is that they haven't worked on each gene in their portfolio since their patent was awarded. I'm certainly no expert, but if you patent something but never use it, or demonstrate a use for it, after some period of time the patent is easily annulled.

The ownership of the genome is a grey area at present, as few government around the world are keen to meddle in what really is a natural resource in the ownership of everybody. It is currently being left to market forces to determine what level of ownership can be given to someone who has put a lot of R&D money into understanding the genetic basis of disease. It is pretty ludicrous, however, that some part of the DNA in my own cells has an ownership right asserted over it by another company or individual.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

Just because a bunch of guys sitting around think that somethng is constitutional or legal doesn't make it so, although in this case it is people who supposedly understand patent laws and make "rulings" on these issues.

The patent system is broken, and IMHO political concerns and $$$ are getting tossed around pushing for gene patenting. At least there is a debate going on, but the following statement is somewhat disturbing:

Many arguments against patenting of any genetic material were heard, mainly based upon the premise that genes are part of nature and have not been invented by anyone, thus should not be owned by anyone. The PTO firmly rejected this notion based upon the fact that a gene may be removed from a person, then a clone of that gene may be made in a machine, which is then not a part of nature, but a product of the lab.

What I find incredible is the complete rejection of the arguments against gene patenting. And the idea that other avenues for encouraging gene research with patent laws aren't being explored. A patent should be encouraging novel concepts, and that is what the general public believes the patent system does. That there is a difference between the rose colored view of patents from Thomas Edison that you learned about in grade school and the actual patent system should explain why there is general popular support for the current system.

I would put my political support on those individuals who spoke up arguing against patenting of any genetic material. I think that most diagnostics and manufacturing methods involving genetic material could be covered under existing conventional patent laws and regulations if the patent examiner and the applicant were only a little more creative during the application process. Specifically patenting a DNA sequence, even if you can identify what it does and how to use it, should not by itself be patentable.

That the USPTO is granting patents on stuff like this is besides the point, and I don't like it when that happens.

In my original post in this thread, I was trying to suggest that it would make sense to permit a totally unique DNA sequence to be patented that does not exist normally in nature, just like if you wanted to patent a new chemical. The problem with this in regards to genetic material is that science isn't quite up to "growing you own" DNA in that way yet (for the most part).

Patents should not be about patenting a discovery, like discovering a new species of bacteria on the ocean floor that makes gold out of seawater (extracts, whatever). You can't patent the bacterium, but you can patent the process that uses the bacterial wastes to refine the gold from that point. This is basically what the gene researchers are trying to do is to patent the bacterium, or at least the gene(s) that do the gold extraction.

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[the eric conspiracy]

I was trying to suggest that it would make sense to permit a totally unique DNA sequence to be patented that does not exist normally in nature, just like if you wanted to patent a new chemical.

You miss the point here. The PTO *IS* treating DNA like it were just another chemical.

There is a huge body of patent law and precidence covering chemicals. The ruckus is that the PTO is very much trending towards treating DNA as just another chemical, much to the dismay of the the people who seem to want to treat DNA as some special material. And the fact of the matter is that if you make a chemical in pure form where previously it only existed in nature combined with other materials or in an impure form you have made a new composition of matter under patent law. Not 'discovered' because the fact is the pure form never existed in nature. Patents cover not only molecular structures but mixtures and other compositional variations as well. It doesn't have to be a molecule. All it has to be is a new form.

A new composition is part A of getting a standard chemical patent on that composition. Part B is showing a use for that new composition.

There are MANY such patents issued every year for an amazing array of products. The PTO is just applying that to DNA.

It's classical patent law the way it has been practiced for the past 200 years. Compositon of matter patents are well established - what has got people torqued is that the PTO is applying these well established principles to DNA, which of course from a pure scientific viewpoint is just another chemical. Very important functionality, but nonetheless GATTACA which are pretty simple amino acids.

People are free to argue that DNA is special, but in order for the PTO to treat it as special there will have to be some changes in precidence or the law. Until then they are pretty much on solid legal ground to treat DNA as a chemical.

Re:The patent holders are reasonable

[eraserewind]

How kind of them to allow us to use human genes if there is no money in it. And how surprising that people are willing to spend money on their health.

Reckess Endangering due to Patented Medicine

[ralatalo]

Car and Gun makers get sued because of their products, people get sued because they didn't take action that could have prevented some 'harm'

So, how long before their are law suits against the patent holders because they are "reckless endangering" people because of how they are treating the patents?

If a patient dies because they can't be given a certain treatment because of patents, I know that I would considering sueing. And I am not one of those that would considering sueing because I ordered hot coffee and got burned because I spilled it on myself.

This is where I think it will get interesting