Slashdot Mirror
Patents On Genes: Round Two
dstates writes "An industry has grown up around patents guaranteeing exclusive access to testing of mutations in specific genes, but recently the Supreme Court rejected a biotechnology patent saying laws of nature cannot be patented, and threw the issue of patents on genes back to the lower courts. The Court of Appeals is now preparing to hear arguments on whether genes can be patented. The results will have major implications. On the one hand, restricting access to whole regions of the human genome will stifle scientific progress. On the other, companies like Myriad Genetics and Optimal Medicine use the patents to protect years of work invested in research, but this also means preventing other companies from offering diagnostics based on competing faster and lower cost technologies to analyze mutations in these genes."
Unless a company/researcher can claim and show evidence that they have created a new mutation of a gene, wouldn't pretty much the entire history of the human species and human evolution be considered prior art for that gene?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
... can easily be worked around regardless of what Myriad Genetics and Optimal Medicine tell you. Also, location plays a huge, huge role.
Ok, I'm sure I'm missing something here.
But I don't see where a specific test can't be patented to determine if a gene is present, without patenting the gene.
If someone else comes up with a different way to detect that gene, then they wouldn't be in violation of the patent.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
1. Gene finds it way into a bacteria.
2. Bateria reproduces itself several million times on that food in the back of your fridge.
3. Airport swapping finds Myriad Genetics IP on your things.
4. Your sued for owning several million illegal copies of thier IP.
Patents on Jeans? Oh man! Now I have to go around naked.
The solution is not to allow my genes to be patented but to have the government fund basic research on what genes do and let the private sector slug it out. Many companies can then produce tests that are cheaper, faster, and better. That way they would compete on price and quality, not on being first to gain a monopoly position. We have lots of public infrastructure, like roads, that companies like UPS and FedEx share. It keeps costs low. Imagine if UPS could get exclusive access to Interstate 80 while FedEx got I-75. Not an efficient system if your goal is serving society even it FedEx and UPS funded their individual highways.
Patents are fundementally crap, regardless of what industry is using them. The argument is they need to protect their RND - well they do that with Licencing agreements and first to market trade-secrets.
Although I think it's necessary to make genes and their functions incapable of being patented, the current system does have one advantage that we will have to seek to duplicate: centralization. If you have a rare genetic disease, as I do, you currently get the test from exactly one company. Your results come back complete with comparison to everyone who has ever had reason and opportunity to get tested for mutations to that gene. This is very helpful prognostically.
Genes themselves should not be patentable. Make a different sequence synthetically, yes. Come up with a new way to sequence it, yes. Find a way to fix it if it's defective, yes. But the gene itself? No.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
It makes total since to parent methods of finding genes, or traits, but not the genes. They existed already. That's like patenting a diamond then suddenly you lay claim to all diamonds and anyone who owns one or uses one has to pay you.
hmmm maybe we can torrent pirate genetics to 3d printers that create gene therapy pills at low cost... It's to bad greeks didn't patent the Pythagoras theory or all the other stuff they gave to the world. they might not be in such bad financial state.
Why would we accept a monopoly on some natural thing just because someone spent some money on something?
Patents should never be allowed to genes, even if someone spent the whole stock of money of the plant.
Just to begin, it's not an INVENTION, so a patent should not be allowed at all.
I'm not against all patents, but patents on genes, software and business process are ridiculous. This demonstration of greed without limits should not be rewarded.
Flavio
Just scrap the "On the other" [companies like Myriad Genetics and Optimal Medicine use the patents to protect years of work invested in research] ... No one cares about that. That goes under the "ordinary risk of doing business". Built on sand. Investors/speculators didn't have, or ignored, complete picture of the situation.
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
If well those companies could deserve some recognition or retribution for their effort and investment, they should not own that knowledge, and/or somewhat forbid or put obstacles (including economic ones) to others to keep building from that point. Some patents in medicine, or drugs could be actually killing people for not having available those products because their patent enforcement, and i don't see any patent holder going to jail for mass murder.
This is serious stuff. Patenting life needs to be outside the law. This is worthy of a constitutional amendment.
The Bloomberg article cited in the summary is rather one-sided in its treatment of the subject. While speaking extensively to the potential damage that invalidation of human gene patents (at least for 'isolated' DNA) may do to the industry, it does not mention the potential benefits, which include opening space for start-ups and other small business to perform research and create products which they currently cannot due to patents on human genes. Invalidation of human gene patents would, of course, not be terribly beneficial to the current big players who now tend to simply cross-license their patents and thus block new competition.
Also, the article fails to explore properly WHY there is an argument over whether human genes should be patentable subject matter. The Supreme Court has held for many decades that products of nature are not patentable subject matter--so you cannot find a new mineral in a mine and get a patent on it. The Federal Circuit (the appeals court which handles patent appeals matters) has consistently held that isolated human genes, even when the sequence is exactly that of a normal human gene's coding region, are products of human ingenuity and not products of nature as the genes have been isolated from the gene's normal context--that of the chromosome. Many research scientists find this a specious argument, as isolation of a gene is a routine practice in the field. A recent Supreme Court holding (Mayo v. Prometheus) suggested that, for some patent claims at least, a law of nature or product of nature is not transformed into a product of man by some routine or common activity. So this argument will boil down to whether isolation of a human gene and placement of that gene into a plasmid (for copying, manipulation, expression, etc.) is enough to convert a product of nature into something made by the hand of man.
I claim prior art.
Now, let me light these candles, put on some Barry White, and turn the lights down low and I'll show you what I mean.
You're looking lovely tonight, you know.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"restricting access to whole regions of the human genome will stifle scientific progress."
Not in the slightest. Eliminating patents on genes, software and most other things would greatly enhance scientific progress. Patents are dampening both science and commerce.
I'd go a step farther and say that nothing should be patented which can "infect" someone else's possessions and thereby change that possession's ownership. For example, Monsanto and their piracy through cross pollenation.
I like how the summary implies that there are two sides (pro and con) but gives two con arguments.
Nature has been patented ... by the gods and all that is truly holy in the whole gaul-dang universe.
Business is business. A bad/failed business model using patent trolling with the gods, or relying on patents being applicable to nature, the obvious, theoretical math and science for profit/income/tax/fees .... Fools not patents put themselves out of business, TFB4U.
Business should only be able to patent products derived from applied math and science. Patents should be, limited to 10 years, always "Open" for public and private use, modification, innovation, distribution ...; However, within the initial 10 (maybe 5) years any personally derived/added value (benefits/profit/income...) should be distributed among contributors by binding arbitration, and not taxed as personal or corporate income while obtained during the time-cap of the patent. Well, IMO, it sounds fair to US, EU ....
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
To move to my underwater facility, where gene-therapy is as plentiful as vending machines?
If they don't allow gene patents, the companies that stand to lose billions will *KILL* to keep the trade secrets, secret!
I think this whole discussion is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Would someone with the right amount of influence please move to overhaul and replace this broken, outdated system with something that makes more sense in the modern era?
From a speech by Michael Crichton to congressional aides in 2006:
"Gene patents might have looked reasonable 20 years ago, but the field has changed since in ways nobody could have predicted. And we have plenty of evidence today that gene patents are bad practice, harmful, and dangerous. Gene patenting breaks all sorts of long-standing rules about what is protectable, and it does so with no countervailing benefit. "
I highly recommend reading the rest of his speech, as well as his novel on this very topic, called Next. For a fiction writer, he was a pretty smart cookie. Must have been the MD he earned from Harvard, or maybe the BA in biological anthropology, also from Harvard. I especially like how he includes bibliographical references in most of his novels, so people can read for themselves the articles that inspire his novels.
Rest in peace, sir, and know that you are mourned.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
...to GMO stuff like what Monsonto and Cargill spew forrh.
Silence is a state of mime.
Genetic patents are the ultimate software patents, since our genetic code is the program for building us. And these days there is no sharp distinction between software and hardware, since there is so much software that replaces what used to be done with hardware (electronic ignition, calculator, programmable gate arrays, firmware). So I think the real problem is the idea of a patent, period. In this technological age, it's unnecessary to award monopolies to encourage innovation, and secrets don't last long. The whole patent system should simply be shut down: no new patents, and twenty years from now it will be gone.
What if: The moon is a machine -- a lifeboat and "ark." It's hollow and "rings like a bell" when struck by space probes. It's the ideal space ship for transporting a large populations of dangerous outcasts (like humans) around the galaxy. It's huge, with mineral resources capable of sustained life-support and generating great power over long periods; and because of its uninteresting appearance, it's able to through galaxies without attracting attention from hostile forces. At 2,160 miles in diameter (6 x 6 x 6 in units of 10 miles),it's 108 times its own diameter from the earth -- as is the sun, an impossible ratio, which enables us to have statistically impossible total solar eclipses -- and that's what made astronomical confirmation of Einstein's theory of relativity possible. Also, despite a number of theories trying to explain its presence above us, the moon is not supposed to be there -- and yet it makes life possible on earth by providing the ocean tides necessary for plankton survival. The moon brought our ancestors to earth, and it will take our refugees somewhere else when the forces hunting us find us. Sounds like a plot for a great sci-fi novel -- or maybe it's the truth. :)
I do believe there's more than us. More than just other intelligent life. I believe our science AND religions are ALL part of a BIGGER EQUATION. You cannot have one without the other. The religion gives science a need to explore for answers. The science is needed to solidify/justify the religion. If you really do your "homework" and study up on some science and religions, you'll find that there is a coherency between them. Science is now answering some of Religions oldest, unanswered questions. There's a theory that "Heaven" may actually be a REAL place in our universe!!! Possibly some 541 light years away. Not sure about the legitimacy of that one (cool thought though), but I've seen how science is now able to prove what our oldest cultures knew and how some of our greatest technological mysteries can be answered. I think there's a WAY BIGGER picture that we are just now starting see through clues left behind by our ancestors. Look up HD/Torsion physics. It's a new science that's being more or less "hidden" or denied by mainstream science and media. In reality, it proves that Einstein had actually created/figured out THE UNIFIED FIELD THEORY back in the 50's!!!! Problem was that no one knew how to understand it or what it ment(or maybe they did) and thus it was labeled as "unfinished". HD/Torsion Physics answers those weird anomalies that current science can't explain. Theory stands that utilizing this science, you could create a field in which an object within that field would "weigh less" or more plainly, is dramatically less affected by the forces gravity. With this new perspective, the Egyptian Pyramids seem rather simplistic to build and could have been done by as little as one man. Theoretically, a child could have built them if he had the right tools. Sounds odd/crazy, yes I know. I said the same thing :) Then I did a little research after I had an interesting conversation with a few good friends. Well, that little research has turned into many years of answering questions, and at the same time finding more questions to be answered. All I know is that we are living in some exciting times and I am anxiously awaiting to see the results.
There can also be a possibility about an extinct prehistoric race, the hindu scriptures if studied carefully seems as if they are talking practical quantum physics, many great scientists referred to the vedas as the ultimate knowledge pool being avoided by mainstream scientists, books have been found named vimanashasthra which literelly translates in to the book of ships, vimana meant sir planes,, they have detailed description and even flight manuals in those books, propulsion systems, the clothes that a pilot should wear,, and yaa there are numerous accounts of space flights to moon and even an acco
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
What will I have to pay in licensing fees in order to manufacture the genes covered by these patents? Will these licensing only be charged when I actually make a baby, or does all intercourse count, even if it doesn't result in pregnancy ("making available")? What about cell division within my own body? Do I have to pay each time that gene is duplicated in my own body? What about transcription?
Understanding the implications of this gene patenting stuff makes my head hurt more than trying to understand the implications of time travel.
Patents should only be granted when you need to explain how to do something. Emphasis on the words need and how. If somebody experienced in the field, once understanding what you are trying to accomplish, can figure out how to do it, it should not be patent-able. You get the monopoly for helping others figure something out they couldn't without your help in exchange for the information. It should not be used as a cash cow for doing nothing else, to protect failed/broken implementations or to protect other bad tech investments. Genes should not be patent-able because they uncontrolled, self-replicating systems. It is not possible to differentiate between intentional violation of the patent and nominal biological replication. More commonly, how can you tell the difference between somebody stealing your genetically modified seed vs. the genetically modified seed blowing on to their yard and replicating?
I own all rights to my genes. Any company, corporation, etc., trying to profit from my genetic material owe me big bucks!!!
My karma is bad. Don't get too close!!!
Would you be so kind and help humanity and post the gene sequence(s) we have to look for to make a diagnostic test for Alzheimer? After all, it is in nature isn't it? And this knowledge could help a lot of people, very well possible even you.
Thanks on behalf of humanity.
Bert
PS For those that don't know that: The gene in its "natural habitat" isn't covered by a patent. It is only covered in isolated form or in a non-natural habitat (e.g. a human gene introduced into a plasmid).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescent_Black_%28comics%29
dystopia is now
If you first pump a lot of money into a project, without checking the ROI (in this case: can I patent it) that's just bad business practice...
I applaud there effort to do this kind research, but don't complain !
It beggars belief that a company would take out a patent on a diagnosis mechanism that could save lives.
Are patents worth more that a person's life?
With technology moving on as it does, patenting single genes for use in targeted tests will soon become pointless. In a few years (it is happening already), exome sequencing, followed by variant confirmation via Sanger sequencing (directly sequencing the gene, not using a patented kit) will be the normal way to do diagnostics. Nobody will be paying for a single (or even multi) gene testing kit.
Now, if companies decide to try and patent entire exomes (or genomes), things may turn nasty.
My 2 cents (or pennies, where I hail from).
The only people that should have the right to patent me or a part of me are my parents. They invented me and I am unique.
Every time I see the gene patent debate now, I think about how my wife spent five years of 60 hour weeks (grad school, she just got her PhD) discovering that some genes from Castor Beans have no effect on the lipids that they produce.
Gene patents get us all backed up in a corner mostly because of the medical tests that can save lives. What people fail to consider is that gene research is not very well-understood yet. Individual researchers fumble around for decades before they get results worth sharing, if ever.
Last time this debate came around, I pointed to Myriad Genetic's financials. They constantly lose money, and rely upon investors to keep them afloat. The research that they do is extremely expensive. They're not some greedy corporation making money hand-over-fist. (My wife, btw, is highly likely to carry the BRCA1 gene that Myriad holds a patent on...three women in her family have been tested and all have it...but until recently we haven't had the financial security to consider getting her tested for it).
I guess my point in all of this is that if gene patents go away, expect genetic research to come to a grinding halt, at least in the private sector. Currently, the private sector is where most of the research is happening. There is some funding by NIH and DoA, but it's on the decline since some kind of financial crisis hit the US.
Since slashdot loves carrying a debate into another field: Imagine if, say, electronic patents were ruled invalid? I mean, electrical doodads are just really following the laws of physics, and processors and logic gates are following the rules of logic. These are concepts that are at their most fundamental mathematics. What would happen to the computer industry if such patents were ruled invalid?
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
slide-to-lock is just a software zipper... my pants had zippers years ago, but Apple still won their slide-to-lock battle... Why all the debate? This one is over...
This is a landmark case whose real importance revolves around policy, rather than hard science. In my opinion, any decision as to whether to permit gene patents can only be satisfactorily resolved by considering their effects on society at large.