Slashdot Mirror
US and UK May Ban Human Gene Patents
The Dodger writes "The BBC is reporting that the UK and US Goverments are planning an agreement to prevent the 100,000 human genes being patented by private companies. Apparently, various bio-technology and drugs companies, such as Celera, are planning to patent the genes. Luckily, thus far, the UK's Wellcome Trust and the US National Institute of Health have been making each gene public as they are discovered. I think we should start a 'Keep the Human Genome Open Source' campaign." Software patents seem screwy enough, but I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create. Or how governments could be dumb enough to issue gene patents, unless they are meant purely as welfare for lawyers, because that is surely what they will become.
Werd.
From my copy:
:)
-CITE-
35 USC Sec. 100 01/26/98
-EXPCITE-
TITLE 35 - PATENTS
PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS
-HEAD-
Sec. 100. Definitions
-STATUTE-
When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
(a) The term ''invention'' means invention or discovery.
(b) The term ''process'' means process, art or method, and
includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture,
composition of matter, or material.
(c) The terms ''United States'' and ''this country'' mean the
United States of America, its territories and possessions.
(d) The word ''patentee'' includes not only the patentee to whom
the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the
patentee.
-SOURCE-
(July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)
-MISC1-
HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
Paragraph (a) is added only to avoid repetition of the phrase
''invention or discovery'' and its derivatives throughout the
revised title. The present statutes use the phrase ''invention or
discovery'' and derivatives.
Paragraph (b) is noted under section 101.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to avoid the use of long
expressions in various parts of the revised title.
I know no good reason why discoveries should be patentable. This was taken from the US House website. Hmm... maybe I can make a database and sue for patent or copyright infringement if anyone obeys the laws of the US.
OT: Does anyone recognize the tags they use? Is there a reader that makes sense of them?
Speaking as a genetics researcher (but an Open Source one--I've never patented any genes I've discovered, including a couple with *major* financial potential), let me try to explain this.
Ultimately, patents are issued by governments, not to protect "intellectual property" (whatever such a creature might be), but to encourage innovation. In exchange for your hard work, you get exclusive rights to it for a time to exploit your hard work and recoup your expenses in making the invention / discovery / whatever.
So far, so good.
Now, that's where human genes enter in. Those are primarily of financial interest because of their pharmeceutical applications. Allowing patents on them allows pharmeceuticals to recoup their costs in developing treatments based on those genes. And believe me, those costs are in the high millions if not billions these days for some drugs.
So, it's fine if you want to kill genetic patents. They've always struck me as conceptually rather questionable too. But if you do, you're going to have to come up with an alternate way to protect pharmeceuticals' interests. Otherwise, you're going to end all new drug development, which is possibly worse than the evil you're trying to correct.
Human genes at the current phase of research are not that interesting. The interest in the sequences of microorganisms that cause diseases is much greater.
The reason for this is that as long as you patent all relevant sequences specific for the diagnostics of a disease (for example the interesting G-rich parts from a viral genome) you possess monopoly on the diagnostics of that disease.
Contrarily to the human genome where most of the stuff is still theory, this is actual practice. And it being is widely used/abused.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the person's genome as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each clone an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the bodily functions that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the person a copy of this License along with the clone.
2. You may modify your clone or clones of the person or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the person, and clone and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) You must cause the modified genes to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the genes and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any offspring that you grow, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the person or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified clone normally follows orders interactively when at work, you must cause it, when started working for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to wear or chant an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the clone under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the person itself is interactive but does not normally speak or write, your work based on the person is not required to chant an announcement.)
In fact, we all do, I've personally had the genes in question for just over twenty-six years. My mother has (with 50% probability) got the same genes and has had them since before the genome project started.
Question is, do I get the patent crushed or take a back-hander from The Man?
T.
P.S If I discover a mountain, can I patent that too?
Check out the Sanger Center's arguments against patenting. Worth a read.
Roblimo wrote I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create.
The thing is that they patent the application of what a gene express. So for example, it is believed that leptin is involved in the metabolic system and therefore could be used in defeating obesity. The gene is not patented but the idea of using it as a medicin is.
This is a practice that has been going on for quite a while if I have understood things. In medicine, you can not patent a surgical method, but if that method needs a special tool, you can patent it.
In my mind, there is some justification for "patenting a gene" if a company has had to shell out significant amounts of money and time to develop a cure based on a well known substance, but what has started now is no more than an industrial patenting. Apparently, many "gene patent" applications from Celera are based on predicted expression and function of a gene. Once you have the data, it is not that hard (although it is a major research field) to come up with a prediction that could obstruct others from using the gene.
Celera has sworn to make all data they produce public after while (letting their customers get first dibs in the data), so that is not what the Human Genom project is most worried about. The reason they try to make their data public within 24 hours is that they too make predictions on function in order to prevent more patents based on predictions.
Lars
Reality or nothing.
The agreement mentioned in this article is a kludge. What is needed is a fix.
As we tend towards this information society that all pretentious journalists talk about, we are bound to come up with new bunches of information that would be worth something to someone. What is needed is a sensible approach to patenting, not sticking patches over the bits that look really bad and let the rest go.
The annoying thing is that most patent laws around the world seem to be relativly reasonable. The problem is that the people allocating patents seem to have only a passing interest in what the law says.
Some people say that software patents shouldn't be allowed and proceed to cite their favorite stupid soffware patents. But almost all of the absurd software patents shouldn't have been granted under the current laws.
I'm not sure if the EFF(or some other group) could sue the patent office for negligence. Something has to be done. Their ignorance regarding software patents is hurting the programming people. If a government misses patching an issue (like dna patenting) It could potentially hurt all people.
Something needs to be done. Is anybody in a position to do it?
-- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
The relevant principle is known as Compulsory Licencing (spel?). National governments are empowered, under crisis circumstances, to produce generic versions of expensive drugs. Of course, when South Africa attempted to do this recently with AIDS drugs, US pharmaceutical companies leaned on Al Gore, who in turn threatened the South African government with a withdrawal of aid, who in turn backed down.
The point I'm making is that it's not the fault of the law in such cases... rather of US hegemony and the power of lobbying groups.
Buckets,
pompomtom
Buckets,
pompomtom
"There's an exception to every rule. Except for some rules"