Patenting Life

ny times ^ | 2 13 07 | MICHAEL CRICHTON

[Valpal1]

They are patenting the actual DNA sequences, proteins and sniglets, basically anything they can nail down. And then squatting on them, charging royalties to others who may wish to do research or testing.

It's getting out of control and congress needs to specifically remove the human genome from patentability.

[omnivore]

I'm in complete agreement with Crichton. Just because somebody sequences a gene is no reason to get a patent. Patents are for when somebody creates a new thing which has not previously existed. They are not for discoveries or documenting that which already exists in nature.

Both of these are intellectual works, but only the invention, not the discovery, is rightly patentable. Astronomers do not get patents for discovering comets. Nor should biologists get patents for sequencing genes.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"But fidel castro and hugo chaves operate just by your principles."

Was wondering how long it would take you to break out the "You're a commie" card.

You just invalidated anything you may have said. Resorting to smear attacks like that is a big time indicator that you've lost the argument.

[aruanan]

Given the state of the art of gene sequencing, any skilled practitioner can determine these sequences.

That's easier said than done. To find a mutated gene that may be critical for the development of, say, cystic fibrosis, you have to know where to start looking. You have to develop tools to look for it. You have to demonstrate that the mutation causes loss of function or altered function. This is often done using C. elegans, Drosophila, or mouse models and then, once a candidate gene has been identified, you start looking for something similar in the human genome. In the case of ric3, a protein believed to be the first ACh receptor specific protein required for the maturation, release, and delivery of the nicotinic acid and related receptors. It was discovered by doing a screen of mutants of C. elegans that were resistant to the inhibition of cholinesterase (hence "ric"). There was a C. elegans mutation of a neuronal ACh receptor that could not shut off the nerve impulse. These animals twitched and jerked until they died. Looking at a number of these animals expressing other mutations, one was found that did not twitch itself to death even though it expressed the mutant AChR gene. It was found to have a mutation in another gene, later called ric3 (because there were a variety of ric genes), that was found to be required in C. elegans for the maturation and delivery to the cell surface of the AChR. The mutation in ric3 blocked the delivery of the mutated AChR protein and, so, rescued the animal. This is important because the maturation and folding of the multi-subunit neuronal nicotinic acid (and acetylcholine) receptors is a very time consuming and inefficient business and there had not been discovered up to that point a specific chaperone protein to help in the process. Some people suspected Bip or calnexin but it had never been conclusively demonstrated. Once this protein was discovered in C. elegans and the gene sequenced, similar sequences were searched for in the genomes of other animals and, lo and behold, virtually everything with a nervous system appears to have some form of ric3.

The point is that you have to start somewhere with some actual problem and then work into it to discover the genetic component. It's not a trivial business. I spent a couple of years on this with a boss who wouldn't publish each result as we went along because he wanted a "more complete story." So now a bunch of other people have papers publishing what I had already discovered. Of course, there's one biggie that no one else has noticed that has pointed in a completely different direction. Now that I'm out of that lab, we'll see whether I get on that paper we were working on when another post-doc took over the project (first year post-docs are way cheaper than 5th year post-docs).

[edsheppa]

That's easier said than done. ... So now a bunch of other people have papers publishing what I had already discovered.

No doubt it's hard work, but as you say, there are a bunch of people doing it. When a bunch of people in a field can and do produce the same result, it's out of the realm of the non-obvious IMO.

Of course there's no necessary connection between what non-obvious means to ordinary people like me and what the patent office means by it. But it seems to me patents ought to be reserved for more significant advances.

[doc30]

Have these gene patents been challenged in court? If there is no innovation, no novelty, the patents could be invalidated.

[Valpal1]

Some have been invalidated in EU courts. I believe a few have been invalidated here simply by challenging the patent through the USPTO for insufficient novelty or utility.

However, there is a growing movement to have Congress spank the USPTO simply because they have warped the definitions in order to grant the patents in the first place.

Many argue that the human genome is an artifact of nature and so not patentable by law anymore than gravity is. What is wanted is for Congress to claify that DNA sequences, genes and proteins are not patentable by dint of mere discovery, but that invented uses for them could be.

Thus a researcher that discovered or created a use for a specific gene or protein could patent the use and require the payment of royalties for that use, but not patent the actual gene and require the payment of royalties for the use of that gene in other research or other uses (unless they had the patents on those uses).

USPTO is out of control due to the influence of moneyed investors more interested in squatting on patents for royalties rather than engaging in actual research.

[grey_whiskers]

Have these gene patents been challenged in court? If there is no innovation, no novelty, the patents could be invalidated.

Doesn't this directly affect evolution? Changes in allele frequency and all that? How far must a gene mutate before the patented gene is no longer considered "prior art"?

And if the gene belongs to say a microbe, how do we prevent gene transfer between the little buggers? A restraining order? (*)

"When evolution is patented, you'll need a good lawyer to evolve." ;-)

Speaking of which, shouldn't this bring out the "keep your laws off of my body" feminists out in force?

(*) Insert your own "submicron subpoena" joke here...

Cheers!

[DB]

How-to is patented. Not "information". Information is normally copyrighted. Just because you discover oxygen is what you've been breathing all these years doesn't mean oxygen can legitimately be patented. The US patent office went off the deep end 10 or so years ago. It is now a huge mess. If it isn't fixed the attorneys are going to get richer and the rest of us much poorer.

[GSlob]

Well, Lavoisier's oxygen patent expired some 200 years ago. Breathe easily, oxygen now is in public domain.

[Aerik]

We should all be outraged. As Crichton explains very well, allowing someone to patent a gene is as ridiculous as allowing someone to patent wind, or gravity. The argument that companies put a lot of money into discovering the genes? Baloney - millions of dollars are spend studying gravity too (scientists do not really know how gravity works). Patent a device that manipulates gravity? Fine. Patent "gravitons" or whatever? Ridiculous.

I plan to write my representatives and ask them to support the bill Crichton mentions, and you should too.

[A. Pole]

[...] why should people or companies own a disease in the first place? They didn’t invent it. Yet today, more than 20 human pathogens are privately owned, including haemophilus influenza and Hepatitis C.[...]

Imagine the profit potential of owning the plague. Cannot cure it until you pay the "owner"!

[A. Pole]

limited by law to something like 17 years. After that - public domain. Till then - pay for it or leave it there.

Why not until 75 years after the death of the "inventor" as the new RETROACTIVE "Free" Market copyright laws want it?

Another gem:

"[...]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.[...]"

[Alberta's Child]

If someone has a patent on Hepatitis C, can I charge then with assault -- or at least sue them in civil court -- if "their" virus infects me?

[N3WBI3]

He is right in saying that this limits who can research on that Gene and that is flat wrong!

[GSlob]

It's not the gene per se, but the knowledge about it - the whats and hows [to do with it] - which is private property [time-limited one, per law] - which is only fair. Without that knowledge the gene is useless, and so could just as well not exist. So, either wait - not that long - or pay the fees. And without that property structure and the profit motive provided by it there will be preciously few genes to use. Socialist science is in full bloom in places like cuba, north korea, zimbabwe etc.

[N3WBI3]

It's not the gene per se, but the knowledge about it - the whats and hows [to do with it]

And, as another poster mentioned, how would this be different than patenting Gravity or more precisely gravitons. You don't patent a part of nature (like oxygen) you patent a process or invention. If a company invents a new method to sequence genes which is very fast, and give them a competitive advantage they can patent that. If someone invents a tool that can "see" strings you can patent the tool not strings.

which is private property [time-limited one, per law] - which is only fair.

Information like this was never private property until the USPTO went off the deep end a decade or so ago. Why is it that Watson and Crick did not patent DNA? Because discoveries of nature (O2, Gravity, DNA) was never something you could patent.

Without that knowledge the gene is useless, and so could just as well not exist.

This is not a case for Gene patents.

And without that property structure and the profit motive provided by it there will be preciously few genes to use.

Excuse me! We have seen a ton of money spent on research for Drugs, and Science without patents. How much research has been done on DNA before patents?

Socialist science is in full bloom in places like cuba, north korea, zimbabwe etc.

Correlation does not equal Causation.

[GSlob]

The causation is crystal clear: doing science costs money [always did, and now more than ever]. Someone has to provide it. It could be the state [socialist science], the government of a [nominally] non-socialist state, or a private entity. The last one the best and most efficient, when profit motivated. The wealthy amateurs, a la Lord Cavendish, are an extinct breed, but used to be prominent in the past. But if you do not like it, feel free to organize public buy-out of the existing patent rights. In my opinion, such an option will be grossly deleterious. Property rights, necessarily including the rights to intellectual property, are THE cornerstone of the Western civ, and thus are to be guarded and strenghtened at every opportunity.

[A. Pole]

And without that property structure and the profit motive provided by it there will be preciously few genes to use. Socialist science is in full bloom in places like cuba, north korea, zimbabwe etc.

Commercialized "science" for profit is a recent invention. Until our times the true science was based on market and was according to your perspective "socialist".

BTW, the science might not survive the double assault of "Free" Market and Politcial Correctness.

[DannyTN]

If a company owns a pathogen, then they should be liable for any damages it causes.