Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

1/5 of All Human Genes Have Been Patented

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the my-genes-are-my-own dept.

mopslik writes "A story on National Geographic News cites a study claiming that 20% of all human genes 'have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.' While universities hold 28% of all gene-related patents, 63% belong to private firms, with a whopping 2000 patented genes (approximately 67%, or 50% total) belonging to a single firm." From the article: "You can find dozens of ways to heat a room besides the Franklin stove, but there's only one gene to make human growth hormone ... If one institution owns all the rights, it may work well to introduce a new product, but it may also block other uses, including research ..."

19 of 441 comments (clear)

  1. Correction by mopslik · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whoops. I realized after hitting "Submit" that I had mixed the "more than 4000 genes" and "20% of 24000 genes" (=4800) in my percentages. Using 4800 as the estimated number of gene-related patents, more accurate numbers are:

    Universities: 28% of all gene-related patents
    4800*0.28=1344 patents held

    Private firms: 63% of all gene-related patents
    4800*0.63=3024 patents held
    2000/3024 = 66% of all firm-held patents held by Incyte
    2000/4800 = 41.6% of all gene-related patents held by Incyte (not 50% as stated)

    1. Re:Correction by MindStalker · · Score: 5, Informative

      Good to see someone asking this question. A gene patent is actually a patent on the method they use to detect the gene (essentially detection is done through a mirror DNA sequence if it sticks its what you where looking for). There really is no patent on that actual gene, but if you can't create this mirror sequence to bind DNA to the detectors there is no real way to do much medical research on it and you have to pay licensing fees to the discover of the gene for the rights to detect and use it. Now know that the patent will end some day.

    2. Re:Correction by angle_slam · · Score: 4, Informative

      Unlike the copyright act, the patent term has remained constant for quite a while. The term was 17 years from issuance from 1861 to 1995. The term was changed to 20 years from filing date in 1995, but that change had only a small effect on patent terms because patents can take up to 3 years from filing to issuance.

    3. Re:Correction by espressojim · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are we talking positional cloning of genes?

      Now, we 'detect genes' by a few methods: heuristics that look for sequence characteristics (ATG starts, open reading frames, GC content, etc), and use the sequences of other organisms to look for higher than normal conservation between genomes to indicate that these regions are mutating more slowly than chance (under selection.)

      I work at the Broad institute, and we just had our yearly retreat this year. One of the amusing things that's come out recently: we've got about 2K-3K 'genes' annotated for the human genome that probably aren't there, according to new data and detection.

      Not many genes are found by positionally cloning anymore. It's difficult, time consuming, and used to be 'the task' that PhD students would get stuck doing.

      Besides all this, you can't patent genes, just methods on/using them. And there's lots of room for me to have a drug that works better on you because you have a mutation on a gene, and you can get a detection method for a disease, etc.

      I'd guess this is most likely complete fear mongering, and if it was a "CS Technical" discussion, people would recognise it as such.

  2. Just circumvent the patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/06/1 8/2018252&tid=155&tid=14

    This will work until the GIAA (Genetics Industry Association of America) successfully lobbies for the GMPA (Genetic Millenium Patent Act).

  3. Turn the tables... by zwilliams07 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I'm going to patent idiocy, stupidity, and retardation. USPTO will owe me billions! Bwahahahahaha....

  4. -1 Flamebait by Stonehand · · Score: 3, Informative

    Submitter should have read the story.


    "While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes ... these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent," she said.

    It's the application of the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of war.
  5. fortune magazine by discordja · · Score: 2, Informative

    This article was up on /. a few weeks ago, but seeing this healine, it's probably good to relink for those interested

    The Law of Unintended Consequences

    --
    I stole this .sig
  6. Re:Wait wait, what the hell? by arkham6 · · Score: 5, Informative

    When I was taking a business trip once, I sat next to a man who turned out to be a lawyer for a biochemical company. How he explained this to me was that the genes that are being patented are not the 'native' gene that is in every human,but a 'purified' version of the gene that has extranious garbage taken out.

    So CGDAAADAACG that you may find in nature, you get CGAAAAACG, since the D enzyme are considered garbage in this example.

    I asked him if they really knew that the D enzyme was really garbage, and he said that they did not, but they were fairly confident it didnt do anything.

  7. Re:I may just be me, but... by putko · · Score: 3, Informative

    You use the future tense, but that's already happened, right?

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  8. Re:Wait wait, what the hell? by Marc+Desrochers · · Score: 2, Informative

    I always thought patents applied to inventions, not discoveries.

    ...shows what I know I suppose.

  9. It's not just patenting gene sequences by jfengel · · Score: 5, Informative

    The name "gene patents" is a bit hysterical. The USPTO Guidelines say, "If a patent application discloses only nucleic acid molecular structure for a newly discovered gene, and no utility for the claimed isolated gene, the claimed invention is not patentable. But when the inventor also discloses how to use the purified gene isolated from its natural state, the application satisfies the ``utility'' requirement. That is, where the application discloses a specific, substantial, and credible utility for the claimed isolated and purified gene, the isolated and purified gene composition may be patentable."

    So it's not just the DNA sequence that they're patenting; it's the DNA sequence plus a description of how to use it. Not just your body using it, but a technological invention outside your body.

    It still seems like an awful lot of store to give away. The idea is that isolating and understanding the functions of genes is expensive, so to encourage people to do it they're giving away rights to use the results of that research (i.e. more than just props for being the first to describe it.)

    But no, you can't sue somebody for having children; the use of the gene in its natural state (i.e. you) isn't patentable. Producing the same chemical as a medicine is There's a long history of getting patents on stuff you find in nature and putting a use to it; they cite a patent on adrenaline. You didn't lose right right to get excited, but you couldn't bottle up the output of your adrenal gland without coming up against their patent.

    I'm not defending it; I'm just explaining it.

    1. Re:It's not just patenting gene sequences by jfengel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Technically that's a Canadian case rather than a US case, and the decisions are rather muddy. Percy Schmeiser was sued for deliberately planting seed he knew to be contaminated with Monsanto's genes. They originally tried to blame him for having the seed in the first place, but they couldn't prove that that it didn't just blow in.

      In the end they decided that Schmeiser didn't have to pay for the genes but he did have to destroy the contaminated plants. He tried to countersue them for trespass for contaminating his crop, and lost (and it would have been small-claims anyway.)

      I don't think that the issue is considered completely settled, either in Canada or in the US. In his case he's destroyed the seed and bought new seed stock, and it seems to me that it would at least be fair to force Monsanto to pay for that (not to mention the damage caused by the loss of his custom-selected seed stock). So this case is over, but there's more to your question that isn't answered yet.

  10. Re:So.... by thedcm · · Score: 1, Informative

    LOL!

  11. Re:Gene Patent by arkanes · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not quite the same. They're patenting a mechanism that is required to manipulate that gene. I'm not sure if theres an obvious analogy thats not "they're patenting the gene". From a purely conceptual standpoint, it's similiar to patenting mathematical functions. No, the numbers themselves are not patented, but the mechanisms by which you can manipulate the numbers are.

  12. Blasphemy!! by Tmack · · Score: 2, Informative
    Everyone knows the prior art belongs to his noodly appendage!

    have a saucy Ramendan

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  13. D = A, G, or T by Momomoto · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you're talking about base pairs, at least (It's aspartic acid if you're talking about amino acids).

    It's represented as such because it's the next letter after C.

    Similarly, B is C, G, or T; H is A, C, or T; and V is A, C, or G.

    --
    "Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
  14. Re:The root problem is For Profit health care by smart.id · · Score: 1, Informative

    Thank you, Adam Smith.

    You could at least give credit where its due.

    --
    blog & fiction: jd87
  15. Re:Searching for Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "arm bears"

    "bear arms"

    You'll notice the subtle difference...