Nature (Publishing Group) tried an interesting experiment back in 2006 where they solicited authors to participate in an "Open Peer Review". The jist: most of the editors and the authors found some interesting comments, but the comments were not as helpful as the traditional review process. Additionally, as one might expect, when everyone has the opportunity/responsibility to critique a work, few people actually did. Some interesting nuggets about the review process at Nature as well....
IANAPL (Patent Lawyer), but I believe that the patent office has not been granting patents purely for gene sequences anymore (I won't speak of the initial rush to patent all sequences, ESTs, SNPs, etc.)
IMO, two of the best examples of a useful patent, and a valid granting of a patent, stem for Taq and GFP.
-> Taq: this protein allows people to amplify the smallest amounts of DNA into very useful quantities. The processes of using Taq both in genome sequencing, "DNA fingerprints", and making things like the GFP Bunny make it a contender for "molecule of the year". From my understanding, the patents granted dealt with:
1) isolation of Taq from natural sources 2) use of Taq to amplify DNA 3) isolution of Taq from non-natural sources (using other organisms)
-> GFP: this protein allows people to easy visualize events as they occur in an organism without having to resort to difficult, variable procedures. The patents granted dealt with:
1) the use of GFP for visualization of various events 2) the use of GFP as a biological marker (identify transgenic organisms)
As someone mentioned previously, you can't patent an arch that you see in nature, but you can patent a device that utilizes the arch's principles to support a structure. I feel that these gene patents are *not* simply patenting a sequence (contrary to the media reports), but patenting the use of the sequence.
And if someone modifies some of those letters and creates a better protein, then it's time for a new patent!
Slashdot Mirror
Nature (Publishing Group) tried an interesting experiment back in 2006 where they solicited authors to participate in an "Open Peer Review". The jist: most of the editors and the authors found some interesting comments, but the comments were not as helpful as the traditional review process. Additionally, as one might expect, when everyone has the opportunity/responsibility to critique a work, few people actually did. Some interesting nuggets about the review process at Nature as well....
IANAPL (Patent Lawyer), but I believe that the patent office has not been granting patents purely for gene sequences anymore (I won't speak of the initial rush to patent all sequences, ESTs, SNPs, etc.)
IMO, two of the best examples of a useful patent, and a valid granting of a patent, stem for Taq and GFP.
-> Taq: this protein allows people to amplify the smallest amounts of DNA into very useful quantities. The processes of using Taq both in genome sequencing, "DNA fingerprints", and making things like the GFP Bunny make it a contender for "molecule of the year". From my understanding, the patents granted dealt with:
1) isolation of Taq from natural sources
2) use of Taq to amplify DNA
3) isolution of Taq from non-natural sources (using other organisms)
-> GFP: this protein allows people to easy visualize events as they occur in an organism without having to resort to difficult, variable procedures. The patents granted dealt with:
1) the use of GFP for visualization of various events
2) the use of GFP as a biological marker (identify transgenic organisms)
As someone mentioned previously, you can't patent an arch that you see in nature, but you can patent a device that utilizes the arch's principles to support a structure. I feel that these gene patents are *not* simply patenting a sequence (contrary to the media reports), but patenting the use of the sequence.
And if someone modifies some of those letters and creates a better protein, then it's time for a new patent!