Who Owns Your Genes?
Knowledge is power, but is owning it responsible?
That’s one of the questions at the core of a recent federal lawsuit challenging the right of a company to patent—in effect to own—human genes.
The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Myriad Genetics, which owns the patents for two genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The ACLU contends that patenting genes is unconstitutional and hinders research into a cure for cancer.
“Patents were designed to protect human inventions, and you can’t invent the gene,” said an ACLU attorney. “What they have really patented is knowledge.”
Myriad also owns the patent for testing the two genes, which means a patient can’t get a second opinion test—before a mastectomy or ovarian surgery—because no other company can legally perform the $3,000 analysis. Six breast cancer patients have joined the lawsuit, suing along with 100,000 scientists, pathologists, geneticists, and women’s health groups, all opposed to gene patenting.
Myriad says it will vigorously defend what it calls “our intellectual property rights.” The company noted that it held 23 genetic patents, all awarded by the U.S. Patent Office, which has been granting genetic ownership rights for years. “It may be a shock to people outside the industry,” said a genetics expert, but “this has been the established way of doing business.”
The sticky helix of ethical questions prompted newspaper readers to weigh in. “If you create a novel gene from scratch, patenting makes sense,” wrote one. “But patenting something you’ve just taken a look at? It seems an awful lot like patenting gravity.”
“The plaintiffs’ real motivation is that they want cheaper access to this technology,” wrote another, which “we wouldn’t have but for the promise of patent protection,” which requires massive amounts of money risked in research and development.
Tell us what you think: Should human genes be patented? If a company spends millions of dollars cracking a genetic code, what should its rights be? Where would you draw the line between what can and cannot be patented?
Add Comment Share This
Comments
patenting of ANY gene, not just humans is wrong
I agree with the comment: If you create a novel gene from scratch, patenting makes sense,” wrote one. “But patenting something you’ve just taken a look at? It seems an awful lot like patenting gravity. Let them patent the technology for identifying the gene, then someone else will have to invent a better technology to do it or pay a license fee for the original. Corn, butterfly, human, no human made the genes, no human should own them.
Michelle Salois | 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
C'est la vie
Although it’s underhanded, that company’s discoveries are considered legitimate by the government. While jacked pricing is dirty in this case it is legal and should be respected. As for patents while I only think objects or inventions created should be patented the law sees it differently in many circumstances, for instance if one were to write a computer program one could recieve a patent for it even though one did not create the computer or the process of coding, all that was done was find a new use. The same principles apply, although they did not make the gene they found a new use or way of testing it, the precedent favors the company. C’est la vie.
Captain Bravo! | 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Patenting genes
Whatever happened to “the greater good”? I understand that many dollars are spent on research, however patenting genes is morally wrong. We did not create the gene…how can we patent it? My impression of science is that we research. We learn. We discover cures and better ways of doing things so that we may share them with the world and dollars spent on research are compensated by selling products or procedures.
This is just another example of how corrupt we have become. Greed has taken the place of what should be a humanitarian profession.
My heart goes out to the cancer patients who cannot get a second opinion. It’s very sad. Good luck to all pursuing the lawsuit.
Katina Kargakos | 4 months ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Patenting of Genes
Genes should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. After all, these genes should have been around since the beginning of the human population. This should qualify as a “prior art description” for revoking the patent. I think Biotech companies go too far in terms of what they patent. I feel that yes, some things should have patent protection such as inventions and the like, but genes of bodies and animals, that should remain public and not be patentable.
Stephen | 3 months, 4 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Gene patenting
It is against the law to simply patent something that is found in nature (such as genes). But since it is not natural for genes to exist on their own some people feel that secluding DNA in a test tube makes it right to patent it when often times the gene can still be found in people. This is (in my opinion) very wrong. By patenting genes people are purposely causing setbacks in genetic exploration. Not only that but they are hurting actual people women with breast cancer should not be refused a second opinion; by refusing them a second opinion they are refusing them knowledge. Knowledge and facts themselves are NOT patentable and in a roundabout, under-handed, and sneaky way that is exactly what is going on.
Nasim | 3 months, 3 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
Win Roulette
Darn, that sound’s so easy if you think about it.
PascalGilbert | 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Add Comment | Post Reply
(1 pages)