Celera Opens Up DNA Database

greenplato writes "Thirty billion base pairs from the sequences of humans, mice, and rats that were available only by subscription to Celera's DNA database are being put into the public domain. Celera will donate this information to a 'federally run database,' presumably GenBank. Francis Collins, head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, notes that 'data just wants to be public.' Stories in BusinessWeek and The New York Times."

Comments

Re:What about patents?

[the gnat]

You can't generally patent "found" sequences.

I wish that were not the case. However, there are many gene patents in existence. The trick is that now you have to show a function for that gene - although bioinformatics is sophisticated (or rather, automated) enough that you can come up with a plausible-sounding function without ever doing benchwork.

What's really being patented is the medical application of these sequences. For instance, Company X discovers that gene Y is overexpressed in cancer Z. They take out a patent on gene Y based on this discovery. That means that no one else can pursue gene Y as a therapeutic target. Moreover, in one case testing for a specific mutation to detect cancer was covered by a patent. This is a very simple piece of labwork being covered, which any competent cancer researcher could have figured out.

The end result is that patents are being awarded for hard work, not for novelty and invention. Throw enough money at a subject, and you'll get data but not necessarily results. Since companies (or academics) can now patent just the data, if someone else gets "lucky" and comes up with an actual result the patent holders can sue the tar out of them if they try to make money off it. (Or even if they don't, as in the case of the breast cancer gene; the company wanted people to pay three times as much for its own testing kit.)

You may soon be able to patent single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), which may be involved in differential drug responses. Back when I was in college we had a guest lecturer who was a biotech patent attorney, and he said he though SNPs should definitely be patentable. In any case, there is a world of difference between patenting a cancer drug, and patenting a gene (or a FUCKING POINT MUTATION) that may, in the future, be a drug target.

Since most of the human genome is noncoding, I suspect it will be harder to patent pieces of it. I also suspect that some asshole will try anyway.