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.
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.
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?