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

Huge implications for Oz

[naden]

On a side note its amazing how much the medical/software industries are alike wrt to patents. Too many 'obvious' or fundamental concepts are allowed to be patented, thus making it very difficult for progress to continue. And with medical/software, a lot of progress demands priori knowledge to be available.

Back on topic .. the role of patents are a big issue at the moment in Australia as we decide whether to a) sign the FTA with US unconditionally, b) don't sign or the more likely c) sign but with conditions. One of these conditions is that drug companies should not be allowed to sue generic drug manafacturers for patent infringement without very good reason.

Questions maybe some people can answer:

1) Is there a strong likelihood of drug companies not continuing to invest in drug R&D if they are not allowed to maintain a monopoly for some period.

2) Do the major 5 drug companies develop the most life saving drugs or are they mainly nice-to-have (but profitable) ones like Viagra.

Re:Huge implications for Oz

[urbaer]

According to our (Oz's) glorious leader (Howard)the proposed Labour ammendment "would discourage innovation and the creation of new ideas, which are precisely the things that this country ought to be encouraging rather than discouraging".

Maybe someone should send him this article.

The ammendment is likely to be passed though, so it seems that the only reason goverment had this debate was to see who could speak more like an Aussie for the US Press (I think Latham won).

Interesting article from Crikey gets a bit more down and dirty with the issue.

Prior art

[St. Arbirix]

Isn't the existence of the gene prior art? I really need some explaining as to how this works. How is this patentable material?

If funding for scientific research is based on the idea that a company can invent something around those discoveries I fully understand. But what this sounds like is that companies are allowed to patent the fundamental rules discovered and not actually a product of any creative work. It's almost like a company patenting the use of strong or weak forces in an atom upon their discovery. Or someone patenting the human digestive tract.

I'd like to hear that there's something to this that I'm not understanding. Unless someone is actually *creating* this genes then I don't see how thay can be patented.

--Matthew

Re:Prior art

[Ohreally_factor]

Yeah, please can some expert step forward and explain this to us? I share the same gut feeling that this is somehow wrong and an abuse of the system.

Is it because it's actually gene sequences that are being reversed engineered and patented, rather than the entire genome being patented in one fell swoop?

Another DNA patent story on wired sheds a little light:

"You can't patent a gene sequence just because you know it," he pointed out. "The sequence has to be novel, useful, and you have to teach somebody how to use it. Those patents will always be available." --William Haseltine, president of Human Genome Sciences

Another interesting tidbit from the article:

"No other sector of the economy depends as much on strong patent protection or on the flow of information from academic science as pharmaceuticals and biotechnology," the authors wrote. [Refering to Dr. Robert Cook-Deegan, director of the National Cancer Policy Board and Stephen McCormack, president and CEO of AlleCure]

[Emphasis mine]

Re:Prior art

[obeythefist]

More interestingly.

If you suffer from a disease that involves a certain gene code that is patented... surely, the "creator", who owns that patent, is responsible for you having it, and therefore liable? Or will they be able to sue you for third degree patent infringement?

If a patent holder prevents you from obtaining treatment for your disorder, can you then sue them for withholding information vital to your survival, which is in essence actively preventing your path to continued survival?

I think that establishing a legal precedent whereby a patent holder of genetic information becomes liable for either a) damage caused by their gene or b) criminal prevention of an individual from obtaining treatment to a life threatening condition would be a wonderful disincentive for patenting the blatantly obvious

Re:Invalid

[cei]

But they can patent the process for manipulating that gene a certain way, or conducting tests on that gene that might produce a certain response, ... the list goes on.

How?

[Kris_J]

If the patent holder didn't know this information about these genes, how did they patent them? This sounds more like staking a claim and hoping to strike gold.

Re:Invalid

[Elledan]

"But they can patent the process for manipulating that gene a certain way, or conducting tests on that gene that might produce a certain response [..]"

So, has the use a hammer to drive a nail into a piece of wood already been patented?

Can one patent a way of solving a mathematical equation? Or any other operation in mathematics?

Then how in the world can things like algorithms (gif, mp3, and many others), let alone tools (macro- or microscopic) and ways to use them be patented?

Re:I have some experience in the field..

[Teancum]

Yeah, wouldn't 4 million + years of use be considered prior art?

If a biologist were able to form their own unique RNA/DNA pattern from scratch and truly "invent" a gene or sequence, I might buy the concept of a patented genes. Particularly if you could write out a gene sequence like writing computer software to a hard drive and "build your own monster"(tm).

Molecular Biology isn't quite there yet (close, and may get to that point), where you can stick in a CD-ROM or download an image over the internet and manufacture an oil-eating bacteria from nothing but raw amino acids. In theory that should be possible, but there is a long way to go for basic science to even understand biological processes to accomplish that task.

The trick here, and the argument that needs to be made, is how we as a society should reward individuals and companies doing basic research in this area. There are also existing gene sequences that can be "discovered" in nature that can prove to be useful, simply because genetic evolution has made many proteins that are quite useful for living things. This is also related to drug patents in the sense that herbal medicines tend to get overlooked because they are not patentable, but if you can demonstrate a novel chemical formula for a related compound that will be patented.

Of course, we are expecting lawyers and judges to understand science, and that is expectig quite a bit.

Re:It's shameful.

[joe270]

It is shameful because it points to the problem with the US healthcare system as a whole: it is based on capitalism. There shouldn't be a profit motive of any kind when it comes to healthcare if you believe in the premise that "all men are created equal". It introduces inequalities based on economic status.

Don't get me wrong...I don't necessarily trust the government to run the healthcare system (like Canada) either. I think that would result in a hugely inefficient system. But something is clearly wrong with the way things are now.