Slashdot Mirror


You Don't 'Own' Your Own Genes

olePigeon (Wik) writes "Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty.'"

31 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Derivative Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!

    Think of the children! No, really.

    1. Re:Derivative Works by TemperedAlchemist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it odd they could patent something they didn't invent.

    2. Re:Derivative Works by daremonai · · Score: 4, Funny

      So no one can have children until they turn 20? Clever way to end teen pregnancy.

    3. Re:Derivative Works by omnichad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really, they can't. They can patent their usage by some method, such as a diagnostic test. That's just how patents work.

      The headline is just a bit of sensationalism.

    4. Re:Derivative Works by Ironchew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Our immune system already enforces a "no derivatives" clause. Procreation is only possible with an elaborate workaround that keeps the immune system from noticing what's going on.

    5. Re:Derivative Works by Entropius · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you believe in software patents, then aren't Monsanto's patents just an extension of that? They're just sequences of code that, when compiled and run, does a particular thing...

    6. Re:Derivative Works by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the procedure itself (diagnostic PCR) is common knowledge and widespread. They own the combination of the DNA and the procedure, and when you tally up all of the DNA involved in these kinds of patents, 41% of all (or possibly just protein-coding) genes are covered in some way. The paper gives an example of one diagnostic probe that's only 15 nt long; given that 15 nt is exactly 30 bits, that's equivalent to having exclusive rights to use a ten-digit number as a pattern in a regular expression.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    7. Re:Derivative Works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monsanto doesn't patent the gene, they patent the whole organism, which they created by an artificial process. Since there is no natural or biological process by which the transgenes could get into a plant, finding their transgene is evidence that you've derived a plant from their created and patented organism.

    8. Re:Derivative Works by mrops · · Score: 3, Funny

      So a DMCA takedown notice then

    9. Re:Derivative Works by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Oh, but there is a natural biological process that allows those genes to get into other plants. Happens all the time if the two plants are closely related.

    10. Re:Derivative Works by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Appears that sometimes the plants don't have to be related at all.

      http://www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.php

      "Genetic engineering creates vast arrays of transgenic DNA that could spread, not only through cross-pollination with the same or related species, but also through the direct uptake of the transgenic DNA by cells of unrelated species, a process called horizontal gene transfer."

    11. Re:Derivative Works by belthize · · Score: 3, Funny

      Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!

      Now worries there. After watching things like Jersey Shore, the US Senate and most television shows it's pretty clear we're still amateurs.

    12. Re:Derivative Works by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's something we already know. It's how humans got viral genes, how cows got snake genes, how a sea slug got algae genes, and how a pea aphid got fungal genes, among other known examples. It's pretty rare unless you're giving things an evolutionary time frame, and has little to do with genetic engineering, either in terms of scientific or patent related concerns.

  2. Normally I wouldn't own my own genes... by mblase · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but fortunately, I have complete legal ownership due to the grandfather clause.

    1. Re:Normally I wouldn't own my own genes... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      That only covers half of your genetic material because there's no grandmother clause.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. Upcoming supreme court case by schneidafunk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...

    "This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.

    * Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.

    --
    Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by dpilot · · Score: 4, Funny

      Let me get this straight.... If this patent is upheld, it will become illegal to pass along BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes to offspring.

      We've found it - the cure to cancer!

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    2. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Informative

      The same SCOTUS which decided that cities and counties can condemn people's homes because a golf course is better use of the land?

      I doubt it. I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.

      Except that it is not the same SCOTUS that reached that decision. Four years ago, I would have bet that the balance of power in the SCOTUS had shifted such that it would have overturned that ruling (if someone could have come up with a case that gave them a fig leaf against "overturning precedent"). However, I am no longer sure how the balance goes on that issue. Several Justices who I thought I understood their judicial philosophy have voted the opposite of what I expected in the last couple of major, controversial decisions. In the same way, Sotomayor and Kagan have taken positions that suggest that they might be less likely to uphold the Kelo decision than their political philosophy before getting on the Court would have suggested.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    3. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by interkin3tic · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm going to be genuinely surprised if I don't have to pay licensing fees if I have a baby in the coming years.

      This is slashdot: odds are we won't have to pay licensing fees no matter what they decide.

    4. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 4, Informative

      company will sue the cancer patients

      You might by trying for cynicism, but this is just all too similar to cases already won by Monsanto

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    5. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pirate Babies FTW!!!

      (points at own junk) DMCA this, motherfuckers!

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    6. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think you would find many here on /. that shares your lament over how corporations behave like psychopath along with how a few sociopaths have long controlled the mainstream masses due to power/greed/lust/control but aren't you being just a _tad_ pessimistic??

      Considering the fact that the western world has running water, don't have to risk life nor limb for their daily food, the majority has a relatively safe place to sleep, we can learn the past few _thousand_ years of Mathematics, Science, and Philosophy all within roughly 10-20 years, not to mention all the cool tech the average person has access to (such as the ability to communicate long distances) the human race is "overall" in a better place then it was 50,000 years ago. No?

      The fundamental root problems with humanity is two-fold:

        * an archaic belief that there is never enough, and
        * fear which manifests in many forms: greed, power, control, etc.

      It took how many thousands of years to ... ??

      * be allowed to believe a different philosophy without getting killed (religion)
      * be allowed to write a different philosophy without getting killed (censorship)
      * to grow the fuck up and out-law ownership of another person (slavery)

      Heck one guy said "Can't we all just get along. We can and we should." and was nailed to a tree for pointing out the flaw in human nature.

      So why are you all that surprised that we have [yet] to learn the final lessons?? Namely:

        * The Basis of Civilization is built upon Sharing,
        * When we stop blaming/allowing others to control us and take personal responsibility; when we realize the truth:
                "We are our own government", and
        * "Grow the fuck up" and become civilized by not treating our fellow man/woman with less respect / honor / love that we should be treating everyone as our father / mother / brother / sister

      Ultimately, humans will learn the secret ingredient:

            That the purpose of the universe is a dynamic feedback system designed to teach; namely, at the end of the day it is all about one thing:

      Relationships.

      --
      Only cowards use censorship.

    7. Re:Upcoming supreme court case by meta-monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Sir, ConglomeratedGenCo has issued a DMCA takedown request for your pants."

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
  4. Good by PPH · · Score: 5, Funny

    If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Good by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.

      Well, since it's actually a derivative work of both your genomes, this is classed as a collaborative effort.

      Unless you were engaged in a limited liability partnership, you can be sued for liability issues arising from the partnership.

      I'd suggest consulting a lawyer if you didn't have any contracts drawn up in advance ... you may have unwittingly entered into a partnership which doesn't shield you from liability, and it sounds like it's too late to withdraw without consequences. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Good by leonardluen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Apparently his DRM was faulty

  5. Patent Office Is Screwing Up Again by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How did all these patents get issued, when legally in the U.S., patents cannot be issued for products of nature?

    Somebody is massively and badly f*cking up, somewhere.

  6. sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So if you get sick with cancer, just sue the company that is the owner of the gene. Tell the courts they own the patent and you never asked for there products to be put into you. Make clear you only want those mutated cancer cells removed that they own.. Free cancer treatment.

  7. Here is a way to fix this by rgriff59 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!

    After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.

  8. Bad title is bad by hacksoncode · · Score: 3, Informative
    I fully understand why people have a visceral reaction to the idea of patents on human genes, but the fact is that these are not patents on human genes, they are patents on artificially extracted and purified forms of certain gene sequences that do not occur in isolation in nature.

    People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.

    From the Federal Register:

    A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.

  9. Re:In that case by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except for the fact that the dark ages were far better than this so-called enlightened era of mass murder, human trafficking, torture-that-is-not-torture, unlimited power for the powerful without responsibility (corporatism)...

    Trying to cover just how much wrong you stuffed into that single sentence would be a task akin to cleaning the Agean Stables. That you say such a thing while you sit on your well-fed ass, in your warm home, taking access to all the 100% clean and safe water and food you could ever want for granted, wearing machine-woven cloth, sitting in front of a machine so incredible it would've been literally indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago (let alone 1000), leads to one of two conclusions:

    Either you are a spoiled whinging twit posessed of an ignorance of history as stunning as your lack of perspective, or you are so stupid it's amazing that you remember how to breathe.