Posted on 02/13/2007 4:59:54 PM PST by flixxx
February 13, 2007 Op-Ed Contributor Patenting Life By MICHAEL CRICHTON YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it’s only too real.
Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.
Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can’t even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it’s now private property.
This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency. The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings and some years ago began — to the surprise of everyone, including scientists decoding the genome — to issue patents on genes.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And wrong. It is the information that is patented. Those who spent money and time [and risked failure] in dicovering the info, have property rights to it, limited by law to something like 17 years. After that - public domain. Till then - pay for it or leave it there.
Bump
bump
I just was granted a patent for the letter "I". I'm now shopping for my private island now.
Your 'l' letter claim fails the test of novelty, has a lot of prior art and is self-evident. You better look for another letter to patent.
Words fail me. Thats the most inane statement I have heard on this subject. You dont need the sequence to develop antibodies for a diagnostic. Sheesh.
I disagree. Genes should be public domain. Patent a test for a gene or a disease, yes, but the gene or disease itself, no.
Patentng treatments, processes, medications, etc is perfectly fine, those things are invented. Genes aren't invented and I don't see granting patent protection to them as necessary to encourage research.
Then [takings clause] have the public to buy them out.
Patent rights are not a matter of natural law but a granted privilege.
Congress determines the scope of IP rights and they should put a stop to this excessive patent granting. There is absolutely no reason to use imminent domain which is for real property, not intellectual property.
These patent holders didn't invent the genes any more than I did and they shouldn't be allowed to gene-squat.
I support Genomic Research and Accessibility Act to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature.
Well, and I do not support it. If one is to have private R&D, one would have to recognize its property rights on its results, currently in the form of patents. And "socialized" research is best avoided wherever possible, just like any other 'socialized' approach beyond the minimalist libertarian framework.
Alert all French restaurants!
On the basis of obviousness, it seems like these gene patents should be disallowed. Given the state of the art of gene sequencing, any skilled practitioner can determine these sequences.
Now if novel methods are employed to determine the sequence, that's be a different matter.
They can patent their tests, their treatments, medications, etc, even their created or hybridized genes. Just not the ones found in nature.
We've got patent holders who are gene-squatting to make money rather than doing legitimate research. It's not okay.
For craps sake, someone patented Hep C and now researchers working on treatments have to pay licensing fees to do research. Is it too much to ask that the Patent Office only issue patents for bonafide inventions and not mere discoveries of nature?
If you want to have private researchers and discoverers, then it is too much to ask. But fidel castro and hugo chaves operate just by your principles.
Good post. I'm all for fair protection of research/ideas but these cases - and the cases where people descibe a business method or idea with out any demonstration, working model or having to do it - are ridiculous.
I'm with you.
Allowing genes to be patented is ridiculous.
It is a strained analogy to intellectual property rights that provides little benefit to the public.
Note that copyrights and patents are not included in the Bill of Rights. Nobody has an inalienable right to them. They are privileges that we grant because we believe granting them benefits society. And we can and should change them when they are abused, as these are.
At the very least, patents to genes should have been granted by legislation, not a court decision extending prior law in unjustifiable directions.
Congress should pass a law protecting my DNA rights to compensation if a pharmaceutical company uses it to make money.
Ok. Just include your personal detailed genome sequence with the patent submission. Otherwise how will we know what it is you are trying to patent?
We've got patent holders who are gene-squatting to make money rather than doing legitimate research. It's not okay.
For craps sake, someone patented Hep C and now researchers working on treatments have to pay licensing fees to do research. Is it too much to ask that the Patent Office only issue patents for bonafide inventions and not mere discoveries of nature?
It seems to me that they have patented what someone could use to interact with the gene in question. To test for a gene, you must perform some type of chemical manipulation. If the gene is viewed as a chemical, then anything that exploits that chemical can be patented. It's not the gene that is patened, but any process that interacts with this gene to indicate its presence. That being said, I haven't read the patent to see what it specifically claims.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.