Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

US and UK May Ban Human Gene Patents 121

Posted by Roblimo from the keep-your-fingers-off-my-DNA dept.
The Dodger writes "The BBC is reporting that the UK and US Goverments are planning an agreement to prevent the 100,000 human genes being patented by private companies. Apparently, various bio-technology and drugs companies, such as Celera, are planning to patent the genes. Luckily, thus far, the UK's Wellcome Trust and the US National Institute of Health have been making each gene public as they are discovered. I think we should start a 'Keep the Human Genome Open Source' campaign." Software patents seem screwy enough, but I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create. Or how governments could be dumb enough to issue gene patents, unless they are meant purely as welfare for lawyers, because that is surely what they will become.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US and UK May Ban Human Gene Patents More

US and UK May Ban Human Gene Patents

Comments Filter:
  • Mathematical equations are not patentable under current law. Patents cover the implementation, not the idea.

    The main reason we have patents is to encourage publication of technology so that after some period of time an invention becomes available to all. When patent systems were developed there was a big problem with companies keeping trade secrets thus restricting the availability of ideas. Any patent lawyer will tell you that a patent is a contract between you and the governemnt - you agree to publish your technology in exchange for an exclusive right to practice it for 20 years.

    Take the Bridgestone example - suppose this guy gets killed in a traffic accident and we lose his technology forever. Who would suffer? Society as a whole.

    Regarding the time of invention - your example has several problems - US Patent law gives priority to the first inventor, not the first person to make it to the Patent Office. This is because something like this DID happen once. Alexander Graham Bell only beat his competitiors to the Patent Office with the telephone by 1/2 hour.

    There are sound reasons for this policy - the basic reason for the patent is to encourage people to publish their discoveries; in some sense it contains OpenSource principles because without Patent law we whould not have this publication.

  • I have to agree. Its more interesting/practical/profitable to investigate non-human genes. Mainly because there it is easier to manipulate micro-organisms, with their shorter life spans (more generations), the ethics involved, and the profits made from micro-orgamism by-products.

    Most pharma companies are trying to find drugs to target genes, it doesn't matter who owns them. Everyone has a copy of the genes, thats a huge consumer market right there.

  • think we need a Free Gene Foundation. if we dont who will?

    can see it now...
    "what a faster, better, stronger, bod? try GNH. give FGF, your first born today!"

    k, maybe not.

    nmarshall
    #include "standard_disclaimer.h"
    R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
  • I have to agree with you that patents were originally introduced to grant the patent holder exclusive right to the revenue generated by an invention or discovery.

    Stimulate innovation vs. protect IP is a moot argument. They are one and the same, for the purpose of this discussion. Patent laws were conceived (or at least in a government of the people, by the people, for the people, they would have been) to enable our country to tap into its diverse resources by making it possible for the average individual to create something cool in their garage and enhance the quality of our lives.

    Clearly, this is not the case any longer. Patents are only enforcable by the rich, meaning large corporations. If you don't believe me ask any individual that has any kind of a patent. Unless the patent holder can afford a small army or posse of lawyers, any IP instruments are unenforcable.

    And corporations, do they need this type of protection (or encouragement to innovate)? I think not. Companies will continue to innovate because they can make a buck by selling their wares. And would not the possibility of open competition encourage the pharmaceutical companies to streamline their mfg. processes and be a bit more prudent about which drugs to research? Do we really need Ritalin? How about the high cost of treating HIV? Whatup wit 'dat? And to think, we call it civilized to hold people with life threatening diseases hostage to some corp.'s patent.

    Basically, saying that large corporations (or Joe average citizen) need patents to encourage them to innovate is simply more FUD. Plenty of philanthropic organizations will answer the call to fund research to help humanity. Backyard inventors will innovate because it fills them with a sense of joy and achievement.

    Some people might just give their cool innovations away because it is their contribution to humanity, and find some other way to make a living. Why should we think computer geeks hold a lock on giving their work away? Perhaps other techies, tinkerers and scientists would like to as well.
  • This is such a huge money maker that I'm almost positive corporate lobbying would never get this passed. Although I've always felt that organismal genes should be off limit to patenting, I don't think there is anyway to stop it. Celera and others are marketing a good portion of their well being on their ability to own this intellectual properties.

    -- Moondog
  • This article is a crock. Plant patents on hybrids have been allowed for decades. There is nothing new about this for GM Ag products except the methods involve an improved technoque (genetic engineering) to develop the plant.
  • exactly! [slashdot.org] Is the Internet *not* a new geographic frontier? Is the e-conomy *not* growing much [usatoday.com] faster than the average national economy? Under whose jurisdiction is the 'net? WTO? IMF? Who enforces the "laws"? In which language [slashdot.org] are they written? Who do the laws serve? Who do patents serve? Innovators? Governments? "Public Servants"? Lawyers? Shareholding owners of stock? Which of these groups is most needed in the invention process?

    Patents in this increasingly complex global context may end up costing their prosecutors too much time and money to manage and enforce. Maybe we can trade our ingenuity here on the net by some kind of alternative [slashdot.org] model for self-governance and global organization. Aren't we responsible for creating our own choices?
  • Believe me, there are quite a few of us here in Europe who aren't pleased about large US (or other) corporations such as Monsanto dictating the New Food Chain of Command.

    And action is exactly how we made it a political issue. Supermarkets here in the UK are queuing up to certify their food as organic (highlighting a whole new myriad of labelling loopholes, but...) Why? Because non-violent direct action [urban75.com] brought it into the news.

    Hamish

    p.s. Fingers crossed for the Fife six, who are soon to answer charges in the UK's GM test case.

  • The Right To KILL?!?!?! Are you NUTS? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I have always been very uncomfortable with the idea that pharmecutical companies can effectively allow millions of people to die by pricing their products out of the range of all but the rich.

    Patents run out, most drugs are still effective and made cheaply after they do..... (with exceptions, like anti-biotics, which seem to be a never ending strugle to come up with something that is a step ahead of the resistance levels).

    Sorry, but THIS IS NOT FREE SOFTWARE BUDDY. You can't do it in your spare time at home with a $500 PC. It takes lots of money for the instrumentation and equiptment to do the research... Should you blame the people doing the work? Are they not to feed thier kids too? The people who make the equiptment?

    How many MORE people would be dead if those pharmecutical companies didn't invest literally BILLIIONS of dollars to find a cure? Sorry, but it's true, they invested the money, tons of it, to find a cure, and for the most part, most of the profits go to pay the costs of the research to develop the cure, and the rest mostly get's reinvested to find other cures. Money that the scientist make developing the cures is well earned, they are WORTH paying the brightest minds to work hard to develop something that will SAVE lives.

    Government funding is not the answer, the government is the most wastefull inefficent way of getting things done, I think it's best to keep these companies in the private sector. Profit motivates, but in this case it motivates to make the world a BETTER place.. Don't screw it up by placing your flawed communist policy that happens to find the exception (software) where it works to applying it to a industry where it wouldn't work (medicine).

    The real criminals are in the insurance sector as far as this goes, the movie the RainMaker is very close to the truth.


  • You fell for a scam. The DHMO scare is totally
    phony and masterminded by a Grad student like
    Sokal's postmodernism hoax to test how gullible
    the fearmongers are.

    Apparently, you can publish a scary treastise
    on any chemical nowadays and get people to sign
    up.

    John Stossil of ABC 20/20 ran a show on "Fear"
    a year ago and showed just how strong an
    effect this was.

    He asked the audience "would you allow a new
    type of power technology into your home? It
    kills 600 people every year. When something
    goes wrong, it is explosive. It is silent
    and mostly undetectable...."

    Most people said they would not. Then he revealed that most people already live with this technology, it's called Natural Gas.
  • The article writer seems to be confused about what genes are and what the Genome Project does.

    What the research labs all over the world put in the public domain every night is the raw base sequence of the human genome. Much of that is useless junk and furthermore, by just looking at it, you cannot tell what is junk and what is a gene.

    And even if you found out that a certain subsequence constitutes a gene, you'd still have no clue about what the protein encoded by that gene does.

    Corporations are not very eager to patent the raw sequence; instead they are trying to find genes in the sequence which are relevant for some disease. They then want a patent covering all possible tests and cures based on that gene.

    Several patents like that have been issued in the US (I'm not sure if it's possible in Europe). For example, all tests and drugs based on the human breast cancer genes have been patented; if you wanted to develop, sell or use a drug or test based on these genes, you'd have to negotiate a license from the patent holder. For that reason, many labs have stopped doing these tests.

    Personally, I think these patents are way too broad. Nobody should be able to say "I own all possible drugs which are based on this information" without even describing a single such drug. Let the drugs themselves be patented if necessary, but not the information used to make them. It is clear that the companies discovered the gene and its function, they didn't invent it. Discoveries are not patentable, only inventions are. A specific drug or test based on the gene is an invention.

    --

  • Clearly, this is not the case any longer. Patents are only enforcable by the rich, meaning large corporations. If you don't believe me ask any individual that has any kind of a patent. Unless the patent holder can afford a small army or posse of lawyers, any IP instruments are unenforcable.

    Clearly, you are wrong. Look at the example of Stc vs. Microsoft for example. Whithout patent law Microsoft could have just rolled over these Stac without any punishment. There are plenty of law firms that will take an infringement case on contingency if it looks good enough.

    Patents can, and DO protect the little guy from the large corporation.
  • Just announced the US Patent office has just approved a patent for one Issac Newton for his invention/discovery of gravity. All persons who are currently using gravity without paid licencing fees are order to cease use imeadiatly. Major lawsuits are expected as my corporation have alleageady used gravity to their advantages (ie. keeping people seated infront of thier computer too long, .........)
  • Pharma companies costs are much greater than the manufacture of the dispensable drug. Their hit rate in drug discovery is very low. Of the compounds they 'discover', less than 1 in 20 actually make it through to the pharmacy.

    In addition, the costs of running comprehensiv clinical trials in various countries can also stack up rapidly. Some companies are more ethical than others about this...
  • Since a gene is just a blueprint for a nanotech machine (a protein), if you believe patents should be allowed at all (which is another issue) you should allow people to patent genes.

    Like most of you, I think that patenting a naturally occuring gene that you sequence out of some organism (including humans) should not be allowed. The issue gets tricky when you talk about mutations. If I work for a detergent company and make a few base changes in a lysozyme gene so that the protein gets grass stains out of clothes better, should I be able to patent that? There are billions of creatures out there making lysozyme; how do I know that at least ONE of them isn't making the same sequence I've created? Remember, even when the human gene project (along with genomic sequences of other organisms) is complete, each will still be the sequence of one individual... meaning we'll only have one or two sequences for each gene which may have hundreds of commonly occuring phenotypes (i.e. the genes which determine whether you have blue or brown eyes, or your blood type) within a species.

    We are still quite a ways from being able to create protein machines "from scratch" without a naturally occuring protein to use as a starting model. Even the latest domain swap experiments are as crude as welding a radio transmitter to a bowling ball so you can track where the bowling ball goes after it hits the pins. Whether domain swaps are sufficiently novel to patent is another issue... they're certainly very unlikely to occur naturally.

    JMC

  • So if the company owns the patent for the gene that makes us have a certain trait....does that mean that I can be sued if I have that trait?

    (NOTE: I'm and NOT being serious here. I find the fact that any company/person/etc. would have the gall to patent something in nature appaling!)

  • OK, if I understand this correctly, they view animal and human genes differently. Yet if I remember right (but I may be wrong, dammit Jim, I'm a programmer not a geneticist), humans and chimps share >90% of their genes.

    So if I were to patent a chimp gene that was present in a human, would I own the human gene also? Even if was not legal to patent human genes? Which takes precedent? (Answer: The lawyer fees :)


  • Let's take a closer look at this idea of it being fair for companies to patent discoveries they make, so that they can recoup their R&D costs.

    Let's say Dodger Genetics Corporation is doing gene research. I'm pumping millions of dollars into research labs, paying scientists, etc. Then, one day, my chief scientist comes into my office and tells me that his guys have discovered the gene that causes cancer.

    I pat him on the back and get my lawyers working on a patent application, but when I get to the Patent Office, I discover that Monsanto was there that morning, and _they've_ got the patent on that gene.

    So, even though I've forked out what was probably a similar amount as Monsanto, in funding the research, etc., I'm left with nothing, and if I want to make use of my company's discovery, I have to pay Monsanto.

    How can that be fair?

    The real argument is whether a discovery (as opposed to an invention), should be patentable. Einstein discovered that E=mc^2, but should he have been allowed to patent it?

    I'm reminded of the novel 'Friday' by Robert A Heinlein. It's set in the near future, and mentions a power storage technology called Bridgestone, which was named after it's inventor. Daniel Bridgestone figured out a way of storing power - a kind of an improved battery, but in the sense that a thermonuclear bomb can be described as an improved firecracker.

    In the novel, Daniel Bridgestone never patented his invention. He simply started churning out "Bridgestones", for use in everything from flashlights to houses. Those who tried to reverse-engineer the devices failed, because they ceased to function when disassembled. There were accusations of monopoly, under-hand tactics, etc., but, when it came down to it, Bridgestone had done nothing wrong. He wasn't even being anti-competitive. There was nothing to stop others from doing exactly what he'd done.

    Now that strikes me as fair.

    Going back to Dodger Genetics Corporation - would it not be fairer if I were granted a joint patent on the gene, along with Monsanto? And, extending that idea, might it not be better, for scientific discoveries of this nature, for joint ownership to be granted to anyone who can prove that they discovered the whatever, independently?

    Now, obviously, this doesn't apply to patents granted for ideas or mathematical formulae, but I feel that there is a strong argument for refusing patents on ideas (such as Priceline.com's "name your price" model) and formulae (E=mc^2), because these type of patents ultimately repress innovation, in my opinion. If someone had patented the idea of electronic mail, or hypertext, where would we all be?

    Science shouldn't be patentable. It's noone's Intellectual Property. If Governments are worried about lack of innovation, they should establish and fund research labs, and charge companies for being allowed access to the resulting data.

    This commercialism of science is rather worrying. Everything is increasingly geared towards making a profit, and the consumers suffer in the long run.

    D.
    ..is for Dastardly.

  • Perhaps, but look at it a different way. Who loses out if people who couldn't pay for the drug anyway get it at a discount? The drugs companies don't, they couldn't sell the drugs to those people anyway. And such a system could save the lives of millions. We are talking about human life here, it is not just an academic or legal consideration.

    --

  • Re:great (Score:2)

    by hjw ( 802 )
    Like most of the 'issues' facing the biotech people today, this
    one cannot be looked at in such a black and white view.

    Sure, we should not be allowed to patent genes. Nature has
    created them through the long and miraculous process of
    evolution. Nature owns the patent on them.

    However, with genetic engineering this is somewhat
    more complicated. If I splice a gene from one organism into
    another, can I patent the new sequence?

    Maybe if use the term 'feature' instead of gene, and 'program'
    instead of sequence/organism, the problem becomes more familiar to us.

    If I 'hack' a 'feature' from one program into another, can I patent the new
    program?

    It seems rather silly to us advocates of open source.

    Maybe we need a Free Gene Foundation......

    maybe we can design a newer and better human called GNH
    (GNH is Not Human ), pronounce gn-ih....
    okay.. maybe not....
  • Any genes from a natural organism, a human, dog, fruit fly, whatever, should be considered to have too much prior art to be patentable. The gene was developed by at least the parents of the organism, and in most cases their distant ancestors.

    A gene constructed by sequencing in the lab, or by direct genetic manipulation of a creature (as opposed to husbandry) has a good argument for patent protection.

    ----
  • Why do they have to patent the gene?

    I have to imagine that any drug they manufacture would have been created by a process and could represent an invention, right? I dont get how human genes are any different than anything else. DuPont may have the patent for teflon, but it's absurd to think they should have the patent for all non-stick surfaces. They dont have the patent to the substance in eggs which sticks to metal, they have the patent on the process/material they use to prevent it. I just dont get how drugs are different. Patenting genes seems to me to be akin to patenting raw materials.

    -Rich
  • Did you forget the meaning of the word discover? Simply, it means finding soemthing that was always there. Discovery is one of the two main modes of Research; and it can entail a huge investment in time and money to conduct. If a drug company spends a billion bucks to discovers a new protien in a pine tree that cures cancer, why shouldn't they be able to patent it???? Don't you want drug companies to look for cancer cures???????

  • Re:Copyright Notice. (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So should that be "General" or "God's" in GPL, then?
  • Processes can be patented, so why not patent the process for making whatever medicine that comes out of the gene research?

    Companies innovate because they can make money by coming up with something new. Patents only (unreasonably so) grant a company a monopoly and in the end stiffle innovation by other companies.

    Anyway, history has shown that just because something is not patentable, that doesn't mean that no one will innovate in that area. Patents are a relatively new concept, and plenty of innovation took place prior to the idea of patents.

  • DUH!!!

    This seems so obvious I am amazed any government is able to see it. After all you would think anything nature does would be considered prior art. But then I am not a bureaucrat. Thank Ghod...

    But why limit this to human genes? The only reason I can think of is because religous groups have lobbied for this; only I can't remember hearing about any such group doing that other than, possibly, the Catholic Church.

    Jack

  • I'm not a geneticist by any means, but with humans having DNA over 99% similar to a chimpanzee, wouldn't many of the same genes exist in chimps? I know that at the moment, certain functional sequences have been identified in the yeast bacteria DNA which carry across to many other organisms.

    What's to stop companies from sequencing chimpanzees (or other animals with identical sequences) and copyrighting those?

    Seems to leave us with under 1% of our genetic material that remains ours...



    ------------------

  • Patenting parts of people means making money from foolish pharmaceuticals.

    So, if the company owns a DNA fragment it discovered, do they then own me? If that segment is discovered to cause some disease, do I have to get permission from that company to create a cure that modifies their fragment?

  • The lasar eye surgury that is being preformed all over the world, is PATENETD by a US company...does not seem to stop anyone... there has to be an answer...

    And it shouldn't stop anyone else. If they have the technology to help people, they should be able to do so. That's one of the fundamental problems with the health care industry. They are willing and able to put a price tag on nearly everyone's health and life. Unless you're incredibly wealthy or are a very high ranking member of the government, you won't get the best care. HMOs will deny you life-saving treatment on a technicality. There may be drugs or treatments that could help you, but if you can't afford them, you're history. We, as a country, should find a way to repay organizations that make discoveries that could help many many people, but are too expensive for the vast majority of those people. The government will blow billions upon billions on idiotic causes such as The War On Drugs(TM), but they won't spend the cash to make life-saving treatments available to everyone. Sounds like they've got some pretty screwed up priorities and aren't really serving our best interests.

  • Hmm, does anyone own a patent on nature, or can I patent myself, after all like most of us I am unique. Really though, patenting genes is like taking a billion year old book and patenting the translation of a paragraph. From this point of view patenting a gene is like patenting elements of a language and something that actually reduces our freedom to use the language.

    Will drug companies start charging parents for giving birth simply because the baby happens to have gene X in them?

    I agree that we need a blue gene campaign. So who is willing to put togther a blue gene graphic and the website?
  • Ultimately, patents are issued by governments, not to protect "intellectual property" (whatever such a creature might be), but to encourage innovation. In exchange for your hard work, you get exclusive rights to it for a time to exploit your hard work and recoup your expenses in making the invention / discovery / whatever.

    So far, so good.

    No prob w/ systems to "encourage innovation", but are gov'ts as we know 'em effective systems to do so? Who governs this "new economy" of interconnected electronic information? The USPTO? Or is this village global? So does the WTO govern the Internet? Or the IMF? Who elected them? Whose interests do they serve? Are gov'ts, biz structures and "ownership" models, as we know 'em, the best agent to motivate innovations? Are alternatives [slashdot.org] conceivable? Hackable?

    re: "exclusive rights to recoup expense". Is that the real motivation, or is it more accurate to claim that patent owners typically seek a monopolistic competitive advantage to leverage the maximum possible ROI?

  • define "human"

    "The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."

  • Patents run out, most drugs are still effective and made cheaply after they do..

    Ok, you go over to Africa and tell them they'll hafta wait 17 years for AIDS drugs to become cheap enough for them to have access to them. If you think AIDS is bad in the U.S., you haven't seen what's going on in Africa. These people have no possible way of paying for the drugs they need, and our government won't let them produce the drugs themselves.

    How many MORE people would be dead if those pharmecutical companies didn't invest literally BILLIIONS of dollars to find a cure?

    What does it matter to the millions who will be dead long before the drug patents run out and it becomes possible for them to have access to the drugs that could save them? Do you think they care that some company is losing some money? They're about to lose their life or the life of their child or husband or wife.

    I think it's best to keep these companies in the private sector. Profit motivates, but in this case it motivates to make the world a BETTER place..

    We'll send billions to Russia so that their government can pilfer it to save their own asses, but we won't spend a few billion to buy the cure to a terrible disease and make it available to everyone?

    The entire world would benefit from these discoveries, treatments, and cures. Wouldn't the best answer be to have everyone chip in to reimburse the organization that discovers the treatment? It would be a paltry sum that would improve the quality of life for billions of people. People should not be getting rich off of these discoveries. They definitely deserve to be compensated for their time, effort, and expenses, and even to turn a small profit, but they should not be making excessive profits. That's just blood money. If they want to help people and make a comfortable living doing so, then I'm all for it, but don't make the entire world suffer because you want a new car every year. Many of the people doing the real research got into it because they wanted to help. They have to work for a corporation though and the corporation has to maximise shareholder's profits. That sounds like an incredible conflict of interest. Better to have private corporations doing the research and being paid by the governments of the world when they discover or create something useful to all.

    I'll agree with you that the insurance sector is probably the worst part of the whole system. They are incomprehensibly corrupt. They make it as hard as possible for you to get any assistance, and then they won't let doctors do their jobs.

    Admittedly, there are surely flaws in my ideas as I've presented them here. This was written quickly. I think the point is that I believe we're going in the wrong direction with health care. We're aiming to maximise profits rather than just trying to help the greatest number of people while sustaining research in new areas. That's where the problem is I think.

  • Reading both post, I don't like the sound of the first one, but I tend to think it is the more true of the two.

    As for saving the people who can't afford the cure, I believe that the hard fact on doing it right is probably to do this:

    • KEEP the development in the PRIVATE sector. It seem't they are the only ones who will try to develop things rapidly and take risks. Sadly, the motive is profit, but if it's enough motive to save lives, I'll take it for now
    • Contribute your money to CHARITY that spends it time and resources buying drugs, taking them to foreign countries, and treating the sick. They do exist, and they do help. This is where you can save lifes, and not put the development in the hands of a more easily corrupt body (government).
    • Accept the fact that science (in this case drug development) is something that won't work as effectivly in a "socialist" or "communist" environment. I have driven by Merck, Johnson and Johnson, a LOT of big plants, and, just looking at the number of people they actually put to work, and provide income for shows me it's not just "a couple rich guys exploiting the sick" it's actually a HUGE industry that employees more people than you can amagine.

    Just face it, it isn't pretty, but it's reality. If you want to help the "poor" treat thier illnesses, you have to donate, and (get this) that means time as well as money (see Peace Corps.). But I think some of you are painting the pharm. industry as an ugly evil villan, when in fact, they are doing something very few people are capable of doing, and they could never do it without a huge amount of money to do it with. So let the rich pay for the drugs.... If the poor can't, don't cry and whine for them, and blame the companies, donate your time and money.

    So, I guess what I am saying is, put-up or shut-up ;-)

  • "The patent offices, lawyers, and judges really don't have a clue when it comes to high-tech. "

    You only say that because you see the silliest cases which bubble out of the silly side of govt.
    But if you really think about it, you might be surprised just how clueful some of these people are. Many of them have engineering backgrounds,
    and huge amounts of experience.

    I worked with a former patent attorney who was an EE before law school.

    These guys have to know about so many disciplines.
    If there are any lawyers that are geeks, these are they.

    And they are well aware that they are controlling industries and business, that their decisions are controversial and often unpopular. (But never wrong... :-)
  • A recent issue of The Nation addressed a related issue: the fact that the market actually doesn't create a very good market for the development of pharmaceuticals. MUCH more money is spent on drugs for cosmetic drugs (for things like toe fungus), and other "trivial" needs, than on drugs for diseases that kill many in the Third World. So not only do people in the third world not get the drugs they need because they can't pay, but the First World drug companies simply do not develop the drugs they need. Charities are wonderful and all, but they simply aren't as large as the market and the governments. By all means donate to charity, but don't fool yourself into thinking this will solve all problems. A government-controlled drug development group might not be able to create the drugs the world needs, but the market seems to be failing pretty badly here, so perhaps it's time to try to look for another solution.

  • great (Score:5)

    by Suydam ( 881 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @10:47PM (#1670461) Homepage
    This seems like a good thing. But it's interesting to me that it's viewed as different than patenting the genes of other organisms. I mean come on, we're not THAT different....so either you should be able to patent genes in general, or you shouldn't. In my opinion, that is where the debate should be centered.

    ...but alas....we're so sure of our own superiority, that we'd never look at it that way.

  • patents... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I wonder if I can patent the thought process itself. Hey are you thinking about replying ? ? That'll cost you!

  • Read US Legal Code Title 35 Pt 2 Ch 10 Sec 100 ++ (Score:4)

    by Greg Merchan ( 64308 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @11:06PM (#1670464)
    From my copy:
    -CITE-
    35 USC Sec. 100 01/26/98

    -EXPCITE-
    TITLE 35 - PATENTS
    PART II - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS AND GRANT OF PATENTS
    CHAPTER 10 - PATENTABILITY OF INVENTIONS

    -HEAD-
    Sec. 100. Definitions

    -STATUTE-
    When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates -
    (a) The term ''invention'' means invention or discovery.
    (b) The term ''process'' means process, art or method, and
    includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture,
    composition of matter, or material.
    (c) The terms ''United States'' and ''this country'' mean the
    United States of America, its territories and possessions.
    (d) The word ''patentee'' includes not only the patentee to whom
    the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the
    patentee.

    -SOURCE-
    (July 19, 1952, ch. 950, 66 Stat. 797.)

    -MISC1-
    HISTORICAL AND REVISION NOTES
    Paragraph (a) is added only to avoid repetition of the phrase
    ''invention or discovery'' and its derivatives throughout the
    revised title. The present statutes use the phrase ''invention or
    discovery'' and derivatives.
    Paragraph (b) is noted under section 101.
    Paragraphs (c) and (d) are added to avoid the use of long
    expressions in various parts of the revised title.


    I know no good reason why discoveries should be patentable. This was taken from the US House website. Hmm... maybe I can make a database and sue for patent or copyright infringement if anyone obeys the laws of the US. :)

    OT: Does anyone recognize the tags they use? Is there a reader that makes sense of them?

  • Why human genes are patentable.... (Score:5)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 1999 @11:07PM (#1670466)
    Speaking as a genetics researcher (but an Open Source one--I've never patented any genes I've discovered, including a couple with *major* financial potential), let me try to explain this.

    Ultimately, patents are issued by governments, not to protect "intellectual property" (whatever such a creature might be), but to encourage innovation. In exchange for your hard work, you get exclusive rights to it for a time to exploit your hard work and recoup your expenses in making the invention / discovery / whatever.

    So far, so good.

    Now, that's where human genes enter in. Those are primarily of financial interest because of their pharmeceutical applications. Allowing patents on them allows pharmeceuticals to recoup their costs in developing treatments based on those genes. And believe me, those costs are in the high millions if not billions these days for some drugs.

    So, it's fine if you want to kill genetic patents. They've always struck me as conceptually rather questionable too. But if you do, you're going to have to come up with an alternate way to protect pharmeceuticals' interests. Otherwise, you're going to end all new drug development, which is possibly worse than the evil you're trying to correct.

  • Human genes are not interesting (Score:3)

    by arivanov ( 12034 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @10:52PM (#1670467) Homepage
    Human genes at the current phase of research are not that interesting. The interest in the sequences of microorganisms that cause diseases is much greater.

    The reason for this is that as long as you patent all relevant sequences specific for the diagnostics of a disease (for example the interesting G-rich parts from a viral genome) you possess monopoly on the diagnostics of that disease.

    Contrarily to the human genome where most of the stuff is still theory, this is actual practice. And it being is widely used/abused.

  • Copyright Notice. (Score:3)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 20, 1999 @11:08PM (#1670468)
    1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the person's genome as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each clone an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the bodily functions that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the person a copy of this License along with the clone.

    2. You may modify your clone or clones of the person or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the person, and clone and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified genes to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the genes and the date of any change.
    b) You must cause any offspring that you grow, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the person or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
    c) If the modified clone normally follows orders interactively when at work, you must cause it, when started working for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to wear or chant an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the clone under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the person itself is interactive but does not normally speak or write, your work based on the person is not required to chant an announcement.)

  • I Have Prior Art! (Score:3)

    by Twinkle ( 84777 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @10:54PM (#1670469)
    In fact, we all do, I've personally had the genes in question for just over twenty-six years. My mother has (with 50% probability) got the same genes and has had them since before the genome project started.

    Question is, do I get the patent crushed or take a back-hander from The Man?

    T.

    P.S If I discover a mountain, can I patent that too?

  • Reference (Score:3)

    by rde ( 17364 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @11:09PM (#1670470)
    Check out the Sanger Center's arguments [sanger.ac.uk] against patenting. Worth a read.
  • "If you want to keep your genes better gimme a buck a year or I'll sue" :-)
  • Roblimo wrote I've never understood how anyone could have gall enough to patent a gene they merely discovered and didn't create.

    The thing is that they patent the application of what a gene express. So for example, it is believed that leptin is involved in the metabolic system and therefore could be used in defeating obesity. The gene is not patented but the idea of using it as a medicin is.

    This is a practice that has been going on for quite a while if I have understood things. In medicine, you can not patent a surgical method, but if that method needs a special tool, you can patent it.

    In my mind, there is some justification for "patenting a gene" if a company has had to shell out significant amounts of money and time to develop a cure based on a well known substance, but what has started now is no more than an industrial patenting. Apparently, many "gene patent" applications from Celera are based on predicted expression and function of a gene. Once you have the data, it is not that hard (although it is a major research field) to come up with a prediction that could obstruct others from using the gene.

    Celera has sworn to make all data they produce public after while (letting their customers get first dibs in the data), so that is not what the Human Genom project is most worried about. The reason they try to make their data public within 24 hours is that they too make predictions on function in order to prevent more patents based on predictions.

    Lars
  • Mother nature has prior art for human genes, which will of course be very similar or identical to that of many animals. I don't quite understand how the questions comes up at all.

    Now if someone came up with a brand new gene which did something useful, then that should fall under the same roof as software patents, IMO. That argument's been done to death.
  • These people seem to have no trouble recognising the potential pit-falls in allowing the patenting of human genes, something fundimental to man-kind, yet they have no problem with the patenting of simple algorithms, which are fundimental to our universe! While I am glad that the UK and US governments are seeing sense in this arena, they should recognise that this is symptomatic of a much more fundimental problem with patents, and (dare I say it) the concept of intellectual property in general.

    --

  • I think it's great that they're going to put the brakes on Celeron. Vintner is an ass. There's still a problem here, though. (Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist. I just provided net support at a govt. sequencing lab for a year)

    Sequencing just provides the mapping of the genes. It doesn't tell you a damn thing about what they do. That's call phenotyping.

    He did not believe the move would inhibit new medical discoveries, as a map of a gene does not reveal its function - that would remain to be discovered. What it would do, Dr Morgan said, was to "ensure that no one company can stop others working on a gene."

    I think the above quote seems to suggest that pharma will still be allowed to get patents around phenotypes. Though there isn't a great deal of competition in modern drugs, my suspicion is that we'll see even less with gene therapies. If there's only one way to fix the screwed up genes that cause a particular disease, then that one method will be owned. This isn't perl programming. Genetics is a pretty set thing.

    This policy is certainly a step in the right direction and I'm sure the NIH, et al will continue to race the private concerns on phenotyping as they've done with sequencing, but I'm sill concerned that gene based cures will be out of reach for most people long after they're developed. Maybe that's not much different from how things work today, but it's still a problem.

  • Well, the question then arises of who can patent the human genome. . .

    I notice that Pope John Paul has recently made a statement saying that evolution is "More than a theory", and is now accepted as fact by the Catholic Church.

    Their position would be that God created the seeds of life, and developed the process which allowed the human genome to evolve, guiding the process at all stages. . . . kinda hard to patent something you don't believe exists, but if the Pope is now admitting evolution, that removes the last obstacle for the Catholic Church claiming to represent the Original Inventor of the source material.

    I think I need to get me one of those Jesuit IP lawyers ....

    jsm
  • That's what I think it should be called.

    I think this should be extended to all naturally occurring genes, and patents should be restricted to the use of a gene in a specific circumstance for a demonstrated benefit.

    There does need to be some commercial benefit to gene research, though, so it needs to be carefully balanced.
  • Probably slightly off-topic - sorry for that - but same sort of origins and serious long-term implications: Shouldn't the business models on which Internet companies are based, be free for every entrepreneur to adopt ? Instead, there seems to be a race among the successful dotcoms to patent the business model that made their wealth. A few examples: Jay Walker patented the "name-your-price" model, base for Priceline.com's success. USA.net, who offers free email on the Net, patented their email filtering and tracking system. Etc. In the US, 165 Internet-related patents were filed in 1995, 648 in 97, 2193 in 98 .. and an estimated 2800 in 1999 ! With that number of Internet patents filed each year it will be increasingly difficult to include a function in a Web site ! How be sure that you don't infringe some existing patent with the function you plan to use for your Web site ?
  • I don't think we'll see much out of Celera. The promise to realease discoveries after providing customers with right of first refusal is just an attempt to keep the gov. off his back. Without some basic legislative framework around this industry there will never be any motivation for providing data for the public good.
  • That being said, I'd rather not have people patenting mass destructive biochemical weapons. Imagine Armageddon coming to a halt because several warring countries are caught up in a lawsuit against each other. Maybe that's the 1000 year reign.

  • Re:so whats a bonobo (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    bonoboo are ape like creature that tends to stand on their hind legs researchers where shocked to find that they also display tool makeing abilitys
    Only 19th century researchers and people from the Kansas school board were shocked to see bonobo's use tools. It conflicted with the ancient paradigm that only people were smart and resourceful enough to use tools, and that somehow made us special In fact, tool use is widespread. Birds build nests out of twigs or other tools. Some make very elaborate ones. Birds have notoriously tiny brains. Some birds use twigs to poke into holes in a tree, to chase insects out. Gulls have been observed breaking a shell by beating a little rock against it, although this may not count, since they didn't make the tool, but used a prefab one. The beaver's dam certainly isn't prefab. Spiders build webs, which are tools for catching insects. Many species of ants and termites build whole cities, complete with climate control. I've even seen fish use tools (stickleback males build a sort of trap/nest to hold the female still during mating season). I don't know if a tool for catching food or protecting one's eggs is somehow less of a tool than a tool for killing others of your own species, but the difference doesn't seem very important to me.

  • notice that Pope John Paul has recently made a statement saying that evolution is "More than a theory", and is now accepted as fact by the Catholic Church.

    Well, you could always look at Fides et Ratio [vatican.va], "Faith and Reason" for John Paul's opinion about science, evolution, and the Faith. But I think "accepted as fact" is a slight mischaracterization.

    think I need to get me one of those Jesuit IP lawyers ....

    :^)

  • I somehow don't buy this logic completely.

    It is true that pharmaceutical corporations need to be profitable in order to fund research. BUT:

    not all research in that field is performed by said corporations. Last time I checked, there was also the public sector (universities and such).

    There are a lot of companies offering gererica, i.e. identical drugs to the original, without the brand name. For example, ASS(ratiopharm) vs. Aspirin (Bayer). "Brand" corporations like Bayer, Merk, etc still make a quite decent living despite the low-cost competition, so I not all too concerned. Finally, I am wondering if the software industry can serve as a role model for the chemical industry: Although OpenSource is going quite strong these days, few are concerned that OpenSource will throw the world back in the the information dark age because it drives all commercial software vendors out of business.

    But my thinking may be flawed, and I don't understand how the pharmaceutical market works. Anyone can give some comment on that? For instance: For a standard new drug, how much is development cost vs. total profit? How does the development cost break up (research, testing, marketing, lobbying, ...)

  • I think God has a claim to Prior Art for this one.

    --Corey
  • Who's got a patent on God then?

  • humanity, cos humanity made him/her/it up

    //rdj
  • So, it's fine if you want to kill genetic patents. They've always struck me as conceptually rather questionable too. But if you do, you're going to have to come up with an alternate way to protect pharmeceuticals' interests.

    I believe there is trade secret law that covers this. Basically, you aren't required to reveal all you know. Also, you can arrange contracts that require secrecy on the other party's part, with the consequence of substantial monetary damages being awarded if they violate their part of the contract. So if a gene is valuable, make it a trade secret and sell access to the hidden knowledge.
  • You cannot patent ideas. All patents have to be attached to some tangible thing, like an automobile or a chair or a stick. According to patent law, you can't patent mathematical formulas or scientific theories. You can't charge people for thinking. Believe me - I work in patent law.
  • When you and your wife/husband go to have children some day, there will be hospital expenses, child care expenses, and patent royalties to pay out to corporations on the use of a particular gene in your new born. Children are expensive. This patenting genes is ridiculous.
  • I have tried before, and I will give it a go again.

    The Free Gene Foundation more or less exists. 'Seed Savers' networks have existed for decades or more preserving 'old varieties' seeds. Our food was under threat for ages before the current methods of genetic engineering from Multinational (now Transnational) companies (read ICI).

    There are a lot of parallels between Free/Open Source ideas and the seed savers. It would make a good essay for someone to write it up, but I have never got anyone on /. interested in pursuing the link in a thread . . . oh well . . .

    -- Reverend Vryl


  • You can't patent something that has already been in common use, or something that someone else can prove that they've done, or had before..

    lmao, I can just see myself being trucked into the courtroom crying out "Prior Art! Prior Art!",
    and claiming all other genes-types as derivitive works of mine.. =)

    (Thus proving that I'm "original" in the strictest sense of the word... lol )


    Truthfully, from what my chemist friends explained to me, you patent a gene by sticking it into some "trivial" molecule, and then you patent that molecule. Since there are tons of variations on that theme, many patents are needed to cover the same gene (patenting the gene itself, as I understand is a problem, because of the prior art thing... Cannot patent something that exists in nature!! ) (But you can patent a variation.. that is how we get patents on certain plants.. Mix the breeds yourself, produce a new one, etc. get a patent!)

  • So if a drug company does patent the human genome, do I have to pay them a license to live? After all, I'm making use of their patented product in order to live...

    Something is seriously wrong with the patent office if we even have to consider a ban on patents on human genes.
  • Yes. There is a book called 'Seeds of Change', which documents the work ( and motivations ) of
    such an organisation. It's a highly insightful book, that quite frankly scares a lot of people.

    The 'Seeds of Change' is an organic farm somewhere in the midwest of the USA. They are applying modern thinking to traditional native american cultivation techniques, and getting some impressive results.

    Here in Ireland, there is quite a large market now for organic food. This reflects the growing paranoia amongst the public about GM and pesticides.

    A lot of the pro GM camp see this as hysteria by those who do not understand genetic engineering, but I see it as an unwillingness of the people to trust the sciences on something as basic as food.

    There is a theory that the babylonian civilisation was wiped out due to their adoption of metals in their cooking implements. There are strong traces of arsenic and mercury in the veins in the region.
    Just another example of a technology whose immediate benefits made it seem like a good idea.

    Hidden risks. They are inherinent in any new technology. Don't mess with our food. Contrary to popular opinion we do not need GM to feed the population of the earth.
  • Were you duly logged in, and do you accept cookies? Alternatively, did your browser forget your password after you got the preview? Make sure to reenter the password immediately prior to submission if necessary.
  • But it's interesting to me that it's viewed as different than patenting the genes of other organisms. I mean come on, we're not THAT different....

    I think the relevant difference is that we're the only ones who can buy stuff.

  • Mother nature has prior art for human genes

    She has waited far too long to get an attorney.
    Doesn't she know how to survive in today's business world?
  • The problem with donating money to buy drugs is that you're still buying drugs at very inflated prices so that your money only does a fraction of what it could do. When it comes to people's lives, this kind of wastefulness is inexcuseable. That's why I say that rather than just buying the drugs, we need to buy the rights to make the drugs. These rights should be bought for a reasonable price based on what it cost to develop the drugs, plus a reasonable profit, not based on how much they could make by milking the world by selling just the drugs.
  • > Much of the concern about human gene patenting
    > has involved Craig Venter, a pioneering US
    > scientist and entrepreneur. His company, Celera,
    > has claimed it will sequence the 100,000 genes
    > before an international collaboration, the Human
    > Genome Project, does so. This could allow
    > Professor Venter to patent the genes.

    I can buy the idea of a country having a patent
    system to promote innovation by allowing companies
    to have patents on discoveries so they can recoup
    their investments. But it looks like the Human
    Genome Project is going to do it anyway, so why
    should we allow *any* company to profit from it?
    It looks like in this case we don't need to
    motivate the companies to do the task because it's
    already being done.

    It looks like Craig Venter is *racing* the HGP
    to discover the human genomes. It's not like
    he's the only one doing it and needs
    encouragement. He's just looking to cash in
    before someone else (HGP) discovers it.
    Where is the benefit to the citizenry here?

  • Shouldn't be necessary... but sadly is (Score:3)

    by Lerc ( 71477 ) on Monday September 20, 1999 @11:23PM (#1670503)
    The agreement mentioned in this article is a kludge. What is needed is a fix.

    As we tend towards this information society that all pretentious journalists talk about, we are bound to come up with new bunches of information that would be worth something to someone. What is needed is a sensible approach to patenting, not sticking patches over the bits that look really bad and let the rest go.

    The annoying thing is that most patent laws around the world seem to be relativly reasonable. The problem is that the people allocating patents seem to have only a passing interest in what the law says.

    Some people say that software patents shouldn't be allowed and proceed to cite their favorite stupid soffware patents. But almost all of the absurd software patents shouldn't have been granted under the current laws.

    I'm not sure if the EFF(or some other group) could sue the patent office for negligence. Something has to be done. Their ignorance regarding software patents is hurting the programming people. If a government misses patching an issue (like dna patenting) It could potentially hurt all people.

    Something needs to be done. Is anybody in a position to do it?
  • I have always been very uncomfortable with the idea that pharmecutical companies can effectively allow millions of people to die by pricing their products out of the range of all but the rich. Witness AIDS treatments which cost very little to manufacture, yet are sold at a price that makes it impossible for those dying in the 3rd world to benefit from them.

    Should the pharmecutical companies' profit motive be allowed to permit millions of people to die?

    --

  • because it cost them shitloads to research and discover them in the first place.
    they need to protect their costs until they make the money back.
  • They added a "Post Anonymously" box.
    You may have it checked!
  • I mean as futile as that subject sounds. How could anyone in their right mind patent a human gene or any gene of any other species. I mean if you didn't want to spend the money for a cure of some kinda of disease then you should have not spent it.

    And as far as this protecting the financial interests of said company wanting to reap benefits for the discovery of the gene. They really didn't discover it either. It was always right there. I don't know if you can patent medicine or not, but if so that's the way to go for them. If this sort of patenting took place I believe Ol Billy Gates would start his on pharmecutical company and start making us pay a licensing fee to use our genes. Man think of the possibility. Pay him $10 for use of the gene bill2000. Hell in the US alone that's 2+ billion dollars.

  • > Now, that's where human genes enter in. Those are primarily of financial interest because of
    > their pharmeceutical applications. Allowing patents on them allows pharmeceuticals to recoup
    > their costs in developing treatments based on those genes. And believe me, those costs are in
    > the high millions if not billions these days for some drugs.

    I can see your point, but I don't see that not allowing human gene sequences to be patented would preclude treatments based on those sequences to be patented.

    That is, if company 'A' is allowed to patent a particular human gene, only company 'A' could develop (or license to be developed) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.

    However, if company 'A' is not allowed to patent that particular gene, that does not prevent them (and companies 'B', 'C', and 'D') from developing (and patenting) treatments for genetic diseases involving this gene.

    Granted, there is less financial incentive for company 'A' to do genetic research in the first place (although keeping their research as a trade secret does offer them a headstart in developing treatments).

    On the bright side, in less than one human generation (about 30 years), the human genome will be mapped, any patents will have expired, and genetic treatments should be commonplace.
  • You can't patent something that you didn't discover. The law is that if it's been known and in the public for more than a year, you're screwed, you can't get a patent on it. So if you read about something in a book or magazine, it's probably too late - the idea is out there, it's taken. You can't get a patent. The only way around it is if it's only been publically known for a year or less, and you can prove that you invented the thing before that. As for water, the wheel, the abacus, etc., they've been known about for a long time - too late.

  • Re:great (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This is not as recent an issue as people seem to think. Levi Strauss had a patent going in 1864. And I wish you would all learn to spell. It's "JEANS".
  • well if the gov't only bans patenting human genes then companies can still genitical test tube bread new species and hold the 'ownership' over the genetic pattern of hybreads and license them to others who would want to use them.... or maybe i should go to sleep?
  • My personal view on patents (which may not be particularly well thought out) is that in general, science cannot(or should not) be patented, but engineering can.
    Having Galileo asking people for cash for using optical telecopes isn't unreasonable, but Newton putting tax on weight is quite a bizarre thought!
    This does unfortunately come into a grey area in genetics, as if you can solve some medical problems by genetic manipulation then it is technically engineering, with the patentable part being how the transform is performed. However, to my mind, patenting sequences makes no sense unless they are not naturally occurring.

    anyway, that's my tu'pence worth.
  • So how did that person get a copywrite(or whatever it maybe is it different?) on linux a while back? isnt that the same difference?
  • Hum... Methink I have to sale my Incyte shares!
    AFAIK, Incyte [incyte.com] has asked for 500 or so patents on genes.

    I find a bit ridiculous to ban patenting on genes and not on proteins. Most genes become proteins and most drugs work on protein. Everyone will patent more proteins instead of genes. It's not as simple as that, I know, but still.

  • them:"Ok, you have blond hair, and we own the gene for that, so you must either shave your head or liscence your hair..."
    me:"You own the gene, huh? ok, take it back!"
  • OK.... to someone with the equiptment:
    copy any and all copyrighted software int genes as follows:
    A=00
    T=01
    G=10
    C=11

  • Re:Should Pharmecutical companies have right to ki (Score:3)

    by pompomtom ( 90200 ) on Tuesday September 21, 1999 @02:29AM (#1670522)
    The relevant principle is known as Compulsory Licencing (spel?). National governments are empowered, under crisis circumstances, to produce generic versions of expensive drugs. Of course, when South Africa attempted to do this recently with AIDS drugs, US pharmaceutical companies leaned on Al Gore, who in turn threatened the South African government with a withdrawal of aid, who in turn backed down.

    The point I'm making is that it's not the fault of the law in such cases... rather of US hegemony and the power of lobbying groups.



    Buckets,

    pompomtom

  • The French have sponsorised the Genethon [genethon.fr] project for a decade now.
    They are being funded every year by a 24 hour long tv show where many french citizen participate and money is raised.
    All the work they have done (like identifying all human genes) is given to the public domain so it can't be patented.
    The above link is in English

  • Re:Why human genes are patentable.... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't really understand why they shouldn't be able to patent drugs they produce, or if they
    can then why they need to patent the genes too. Could you explain better why they would
    need to patent genes to recover their costs of recovering drugs?

    Because a patent on a drug is meaningless. If I'm your competitor and I know that your cool new drug is a chemical of class X targetting receptor Y, I can just use a slightly different chemical of class X (say, X + epsilon) which also targets receptor Y. I can then undercut your pricing dramatically, since I don't have to recoup the billions of dollars you spent developing the original; I only spent $20,000 developing the similar.

    Incidentally, I don't believe for a moment that ending gene patents would end all drug
    development, do you think maybe you're guilty of hyperbole there? Maybe there'd be less,
    but you're saying there'd be none?

    You have absolutely no familiarity with drug companies if you think they would continue without a guaranteed way to make money. That's simply how they work. So no, I don't think I was being in the least bit hyperbolic. Do you have any idea of how much they've already invested because of the promise of being able to patent what they discover? Do you have any idea of how many human genes they have already patented?
  • Human genes are not the only one that are dangerous to allow patenting. Financial times has an interesting article on how companies holding patents for gene-manipulated food can get a stranglehold on all of us. Read it up at here [ft.com].

    IMHO, this issue is as least as scary as M$, especially given the history of companies like DuPont (anyone remembers Jack Herer's book ("the emperor wears no clothes"?). Clearly, companies should in general be protected to reap the rewards of their research and work. However, this protection needs to be balanced with the protection of society and (yeah, corny), humankind.

    I don't see a lot of serious effort to address this issue politically. IMHO, this is the time to act.

  • I have always been very uncomfortable with the idea that pharmecutical companies can
    effectively allow millions of people to die by pricing their products out of the range of all but
    the rich. Witness AIDS treatments which cost very little to manufacture, yet are sold at a price
    that makes it impossible for those dying in the 3rd world to benefit from them.

    It costs very little to manufacture them, true. But that's not what you're paying for. You're paying for the $6 billion they spent developing the drug, and then the other $120 million they spent doing FDA trials. Somebody has to reimburse the pharmeceuticals for all that, and so far the only developed model has been to tack that onto the price of the drug....
  • A while a lot of patents are being applied for, regulations vary wildy among countries. With globalistation, it will be near impossible to enforce.

    Considering all the silly patents that are given out, and the lack of means to enforce them worldwide, imo the system will disappear in the near future.
  • One problem is that the aspect "human" is distracting people. At it's core, this is just another go-around regarding how much of some knowledge should be able to become property. The familiar arguments are there:

    1) If you don't give the corporations enough, they won't develop the products
    vs.
    2) Developing a product shouldn't result in a complete monopoly in all cases

    I think a basic point in the human genome case is that there was a great deal of public development that needs no post-facto monopolization.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close