Slashdot Mirror
1/5 of All Human Genes Have Been Patented
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 ..."
...just check my archives.
God.
I read
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)
So... which one of us meat popsicles gets to claim "prior art" first?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
God has prior art, their patents are invalid.
I thought it was a joke that you can patent genes, but I guess it's for real? Wow, that's a real shocker, but it brings up a question, how can you patent something that you didn't invent and what can you do with this patent? Does this mean that 28% of my er.. body belongs to someone else?
Basically a dumbfounded, "Wh...whaaaaat?"
The only reasonably good news is that such patents should expire, and when they do they can't be re-patented again. But given the dismal record of extending copyrights well beyond the time of anyone living today, can patents be far behind?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Given the amount of time it will take to really grasp how all these genes and things play together, the patents could mostly be expired by the time the innovation comes. Yeah, I know they'll extend them forever like copyrights at some point. Say it with me... P.T.O must Go. P.T.O must Go.
What ever happened to the idea that you can't patent facts? Discovering WHAT they do doesn't mean you invented them.
If I discover a new element, can I patent it? Can you imagine if someone patented, say, Gold?
TAHT'S WHY I'M PORTING MYSELF TO A SILICON BASED LIFE FORM! WHO'S WITH ME?
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
In the United States, business firms patent you!
Submitter should have read the story.
... these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent," she said.
"While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes
It's the application of the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Hey. It looks there are two genes ... GH1 and GH2.
...
Some cut'n'pastes from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/
Official Symbol: GH1 and Name: growth hormone 1 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4261, GH, GH-N, GHN, hGH-N
Other Designations: pituitary growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2688
Official Symbol: GH2 and Name: growth hormone 2 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4262, GH-V, GHL, GHV, hGH-V
Other Designations: placenta-specific growth hormone; placental-specific growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2689
God, aka "The Supreme Being", "The Intelligent Designer" and "Don't Fuck With Me Pip-Squeaks" recently filed claim in federal court for patent infringement. He/She/It/They claim that patents regarding the human genome violate He/She/It/Their's intellectual property laws.
"Good grief, you little monkeys are an annoying lot," God was quoted as saying. "Between this and that jackass Jack Thompson, I'm going to have to fire up another hurricane."
Comments from the defendants were not returned at the time of this filing, as they had all turned to salt.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
You see, I've already patented the asshole... and these people are clearly violating my patent!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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
Does anyone know if these patents cover genes (a particular location on the DNA) or alleles (a specific variant that this found for some gene)? If the patent covers a specific DNA sequence, then it is an allele. If it covers an allele, then the number of possible patents is much larger than the number of genes.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
So this means that every time I spank the monkey, I'm committing hundreds of millions of acts of patent violation?
Making the US healthcare industry and supporting industries a private, for profit enterprise was an epic disaster, particularly in the department of research and IP. Companies will only pursue solutions to medical problems they think they will be able to have exclusive control over, in order to ensure they can profit from them. PROFIT??? This is people's HEALTH we are talking about here! Profit shouldn't even be part of this discussion. It's about the people you are trying to help, period. End of discussion. Motivation problem solved. The only questions should be 1) what holds the best promise for helping people 2) how do we produce it safely and 3) how do we produce it inexpensively. National ownership and public right to all medical information should be an absolute no brainer. Don't give them the excuse of needing to make up research costs to have high prices. Fund all medical research Federally, and base it solely on potential healing merit and educational benefit. Peoples' health should not have a price tag on it - people are the only reason a society exists at all. That's like saying its not cost effective to evacuate poor people from a potential disaster area, since they aren't important to the economy and are easily replaced. (Note to the hysterical - that's an example of an argument as wrong on as many levels as I could make it wrong, not an actual argument I'm making.) We don't stand for that, and I don't think we should stand for medical research and production costs being dictated by profit potential analysis.
r ch_near_standstill_for_childhood_cancer_drugsp ?scntid=31720021644339&contenttype=PARA&
I have heard the arguments before that medical research moves faster because of the profit motive, but I don't believe it and would have to see hard evidence to believe it. Medical research is like anything else - individuals are motivated by a paycheck and perhaps the chances to help people/do interesting work. COMPANIES are motivated by profits, and I don't believe corporate thinking has been a net positive to the medical world in any sense. Quite the reverse, actually.
I don't know how I could sleep nights knowing I ran a company that had (for example) decided to pursue less promising but potentially profitable cures instead of building off of public domain but very promising work. As a human being it would haunt me.
Here are some examples of profit-motive-as-only-motive issues (I'm sure many more could be found in a few minutes):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/acs/20050928/hl_acs/resea
http://www.accessmed-msf.org/prod/publications.as
And now patenting genes. Great. In case there weren't enough issues out there slowing things up, we now add potential patent litigation as yet another reason not to pursue ideas. Because, thanks to the profit motive we know that barring enormous financial resources people will avoid these areas rather than risk having to fork out for patent licensing fees. What a messed up system. Personally I think the nation's system needs to be totally ripped out, all the way from the admistrative system to the drug companies, and redone with one and ONLY one focus - how can they help those who need it. Individuals working in the system can still be paid well - individual incentive is fine since it draws smart people, but the companies contribute nothing beneficial to the people needing help and should be cut out of the loop.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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.
The patents basically mean that for the next 20 years, nobody else can even do research on the patent without the permission of the patent holder.
The patent holder will only give that permission if the people doing the research sign over patent rights to the company owning the original patent.
Effectively, a lot of research is going to take at least 40 years to happen, with the results being patented out to 60 years. That's when you may start seeing useful stuff finally making it into the public domain.
That is, of course, provided that other nations give a damn; US patents are valid only in the US, and there are about 150 other nations to choose from where you can do research and treat patients. In many of those, patenting genes is either impossible, or they are considered too small right now to bother patenting in.
RE: "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms"
FYI, the genes that create arms are now the property of Sybiotic Genes Operations (SGO) based in Lindon, Utah. While people who currently have arms will be allowd to keep and bear them (According the Constitution) the SGO Group asks that all people who are currently in the process of growing arms (infants and children) pay a reasonable licensing fee for the use of the genes used to grow said arms.
God: Uh, you know I invented the human genome right after I created the rest of the cosmos.
Patent Officer: (Head down scribbling.) Did you file the proper paperwork?
God: No.
Patent Officer: (Head still down.) Sorry. I can't help you. Perhaps you can purchase a license from the patent holders.
God: (Turns around and leaves.)
All fades out...forever...
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
I'm a fourth year molecular biology grad student, and the proteins I've chosen to study have been limited to only my imagination. I don't understand the business end of this prospect. Just last week I read that a certain protein is not expressed in the cell line I'm studying. To obtain that protein, I had the freedom to purchase the gene ligated into a commercial plasmid from a number of companies. But since the cDNA of this protein could fairly easily be amplified from any donor tissue, how can a company with a patent stop me from using it?
As a scientist, am I supposed to pay somebody to use it? I don't think so.
Though the article isn't clear about it, I think this only applies to people who intend to use certain genes for bioremediative therapy of some sort - for profit. This does not seem to affect the scores of scientists researching the patented genes. So research won't slow down, but the marketplace for any beneficial applications might. (But with the lag of the FDA anyway, what else is new?)
"All Your Base-Pair Are Belong To Us"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
Where were all the "Intelligent Design" Republicans during this? If there's a designer, then it's all prior art, so why isn't the GOP stepping up to the plate on this?
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.
have a saucy Ramendan
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
Here is an example of a "Gene Patent" Nucleotide sequences which code for the menE gene, United States Patent 6946271.
It really looks like most of the claims are about the sequence, not any particular utility for it! Of course, it does say what the proteins that the sequence codes for is and does.
You see, the tension in copyrights is between large media stakeholders and the great unwashed who want to watch Marx Brothers movies for free.
The tension in patents is between large monolithic corporations which can afford the patent rigmarole and large monolithic corporations looking to build off existing R&D.
In one case, there's a balance of power. In the other, there's not. Hence copyright is extended, while patents remain the same.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
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
In Soviet Russia the companies are owned by the people so naturally it must be the other way around in the US.
Linux is not Windows
I know it's easy to call "evil" on the bioengineering firms that are filing these patents, but this issue is much more shades-of-grey than that.
These companies are basically patenting roadmaps for the different genes in human DNA. The research involved in creating one of these roadmaps is VERY expensive. Tremendous medical progress will result from having these roadmaps, and that progress will benefit everyone, but someone has to make the big investments first to get us there. Just as we're seeing with space travel, private industry is more likely to fit the bill for this kind of "long road to profit" work than the federal government is.
Now, I'm not completely in agreement with the idea of being able to patent these roadmaps, but you can't have a debate on this without examining the alternatives:
1) If the populace were more enthusiastic about making serious bioengineering progress, the government could perhaps spend more money on this research, resulting in more of these roadmaps being public domain right off the bat, and thus allowing more private companies to compete with products based on those roadmaps. On the other hand, making the roadmaps might be expensive, but so is everything in the business plan that follows it. So, increased potential competition might actually discourage competition, though I'm sure in the end supply-and-demand guarantees that someone will take the plunge and try to profit from making next-generation genomics-derived products and services, so maybe my point here isn't valid.
2) I'm not a bioengineering expert, but it seems to me that trade secrets would be more appropriate than patents here. Company X spent $50 million figuring out a gene? OK, well, let them keep the results to themselves, they can release products based off of it, and the only people they'll have to worry about competing with are the other ones who independently spent $50 million to figure out that same information. This seems a more fair compromise, rather than demanding full exclusivity. I am, of course, assuming that it's easy to keep this information secret while simultaneously releasing products derived from it, and, not being an expert in the field, I don't know if this is possible or not.
3) On the other hand, using patents has its advantages to the public good. Firstly, given the still-limited spending on research into this area, it *is* somewhat wasteful for multiple companies to simultaneously invent the same wheel, when there are so many other wheels companies could be inventing at this very opportune point in time. So, in other words, there's SO MANY opportunties opened up by biotech, genomics, nanotech, etc, that we might be better off encouraging companies not to compete for the time being. There's enough "killer apps" for everyone, in this case.
4) Another advantage of patents to the public good: After 20 years, when the patents expire, the expensive-to-produce roadmaps are both freely available AND public domain, so anyone can obtain and make use of them. By contrast, if companies went the trade secret route, there's no real motivation to ever release the roadmaps to the public domain at all, nevermind in as little as 20 years.
Of course, none of these points of view are perfect. But I present them simply because I don't think the knee-jerk "patents are evil, patenting human genomes is ESPECIALLY evil" applies here. Given the various possibilities, I think the patent situation is one of the better ones. Of course, it would be better if one company didn't own such a large percentage of the patents.
Certainly I can't think of any entirely perfect way for all this to unfold, but however it unfolds, the benefits to come from all of this will be unfathomable. Really it's just a question of
1) How QUICKLY will progress in these fields be made?
and
2) How long will it take to trickle down and become affordable to the masses?