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.

Comments

great

[Suydam]

This seems like a good thing. But it's interesting to me that it's viewed as different than patenting the genes of other organisms. I mean come on, we're not THAT different....so either you should be able to patent genes in general, or you shouldn't. In my opinion, that is where the debate should be centered.

...but alas....we're so sure of our own superiority, that we'd never look at it that way.

Read US Legal Code Title 35 Pt 2 Ch 10 Sec 100 ++

[Greg Merchan]

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?

Why human genes are patentable....

[Anonymous Coward]

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.