Slashdot Mirror
US Says Genes Should Not Be Patentable
Geoffrey.landis writes "A friend-of-the-court brief filed by the US Department of Justice says that genes should not be patentable. 'We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA,' they wrote (PDF). The argument that genes in themselves (as opposed to, say, tests made from genetic information, or drugs that act on proteins made by genes) should be patentable is that 'genes isolated from the body are chemicals that are different from those found in the body' and therefore are eligible for patents. This argument is, of course, completely silly, and apparently the US government may now actually realize that."
All the more reason to write to your representatives and tell them how you feel about this. Of course I'm in the UK, but if the US rejects patenting genes, that will help the cause for all of us.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
That's my basic take on it as well.
Genetic modification and tailored organisms should be patentable. For example, if someone were to develop a useful modified single celled organism that processed sewage into biofuel, I could see patenting that as valid. It's engineering after all, just with genes instead of gears.
But discovery has never been patentable in any other field, and that's what's being discussed in TFA. You can't patent if there's prior art, can't patent something you've found rather than made, and can't patent abstract scientific knowledge. You cannot patent the lever or pulley, and in a mechanics to biology comparison, those are the best analogues to genes. Except it's even worse, because those two examples were developed by humans in the first place, so at least somebody long dead could claim ownership, whereas genes are strictly a natural occurrence.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
It may be more complex, but that does not make it an invention.
Show me where I can find a ratchet wrench, and I'll call it a discovery.
On the other hand, I can tell you where to find pretty much all the genes that are patented - in organisms that nature derived on its own.
Now - if, on the other hand, some company designs a gene, that does something that has never existed in nature - that'd be an invention. But moving genes from a fish into a plant isn't an invention, any more than adding "on the internet" onto already existing technology makes that worthy of being patented. Very neat, and you should probably be allowed a patent on the technology used for it.
moving minerals from a rock into a bar of iron which is forged in to a wrench is just just taking technology that already existed and moving it somewhere else.
That's silly. If you find a fish that glows in the dark, a bacteria that produces less harmful byproducts, and another bacteria that can eat crude oil - and you combine the three traits into a bacteria that glows in the dark, eats crude oil, and has less toxic byproducts...you've created something new. No less so than taking wheat that someone else invented, grinding it up, and combining it with water that someone else invented to make bread.
The present case has nothing to do with Monsanto's products or patents. What's more, patenting genetically modified organisms is already settled case law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty