Gene patents
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gene patents are patents on specific sequences of genes, their usage, and often their chemical composition. There is controversy over whether these patents advance technology by providing scientists with an incentive to create or hinder research by creating a lot of red tape and fees to utilize research that is patented.
Contents |
[edit] History
The United States has been patenting chemical compositions based upon human extractions for almost 100 years. The first patent for such a chemical was granted in 1907 for adrenaline. Insulin did not follow long after in 1923.[1] But prior to the 1970s it was almost unheard of to submit an application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for an organism.
The Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty decided certain genetically engineered bacteria were patentable because they were not naturally occurring in nature. Since this important decision, patents have been issued on genes whose function is known. [2]
[edit] Criticism
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
The major legal issues are themselves a great topic of controversy[1] [2] because there hasn't yet been a clear definition of what exactly can and cannot be patented .[citation needed]
One of the legal issues is patent stacking[3], the ability of multiple patents on different aspects of a single idea to be owned by many different individuals or organizations.[4] This alone can increase the sheer cost of using any gene therapy, or technique. The person administering the treatment technique must first get legal permission from each individual owner(s) of the patents thus increasing the overall cost for the patient (Genetics and Patenting).
Patents can hinder the scientific process by limiting research and increasing the cost[5]. This in turn can limit the amount of open information, making patents a primary source of information on genes.[citation needed] This would slow down the process by using patents to hide and protect the information, keeping information private. This slows down the scientific process because information becomes less available.[citation needed] Many patents sit unresearched being held by a pharmaceutical company somewhere, while this is occurring all those patents are protected by law and no research is done using the information unless somebody can pay royalties to the patent owner(Garroute).[citation needed]
One legal test case involved a man named John Moore (human patent), who, having hairy-cell leukemia, was being seen by a physician, Dr. Golde, in the medical center at UCLA. When John was asked to have a spleenectomy, removal of the spleen, he went ahead with the operation and his doctor later patented the line of cells that descended from John's cells and denied John the rights to his own spleen. The doctor and four others had a patent awarded in 1981. Dr. Golde later negotiated with the Genetics Institute for 75,000 shares of common stock and $330,000 a year over the course of three years in exchange for exclusive access to materials and research (Wolf).[citation needed]
It is very difficult to separate the ethical, scientific and legal issues of patents on gene technologies and materials, because they often accompany one another in all sources of information.[citation needed]
[edit] Response to criticism
|
|
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. |
Allowing patents on genetic technology helps motivate firms to invest in research with the promise of profits.[citation needed] Without the promise of profits, no private companies would dedicate any effort to researching genetic treatments and technology.[citation needed] Some proof of this can be found in the success of various nations in creating new genetic technologies. Among nations which do not grant many genetic patents, there have been very few advancements in the field of genetics.[citation needed] On the other hand, the United States grants the most genetic patents of any nation, and is the primary source of genetic technology in the world.[citation needed] It's apparent that patents and successful inventions go hand-in-hand.[citation needed] When a company is allowed to earn profits from a patented procedure, this not only helps the firm recover costs of previous research, but also provides them with funds to conduct further research.[citation needed] One of the earliest gene patents was issued for cloned human insulin, which entered the consumer market in 1982 (yourgenome.org).[citation needed] Though it was patented, human insulin is now available to anyone, and there is no ridiculous cost to obtain it.[citation needed] This example alone helps to refute the claim that patents will make treatments unaffordable. By speeding up research, issuing a patent for human insulin actually made it cheaper to consumers.[citation needed]
Today, there are several limits on genetic patents which prevent abuses.[citation needed] For example, patents on genetic technology will expire after usually 20 years. After that time, the procedure or technology will be available in cheaper generic forms. A patent does not give a company or individual exclusive ownership of a gene sequence or procedure; it merely allows them some control over the commercial use of the procedure.[citation needed] Other companies aren't allowed to profit from this invention for a limited time. Also, the types of organisms that can be patented is limited.[citation needed] For example, in order to be patentable, an invention or procedure must meet these requirements: 1). The discovery must be novel; it must be entirely new or previously undiscovered. 2). The discovery must be useful; it must have a demonstrated and useful purpose according to experts in the genetics field. 3). The application must include detailed instructions on how to use the material (again, this is requiring that the procedure is made public, thereby avoiding costly repetition of research) (Haseltine, 2000).[citation needed]
[edit] References
- ^ Dutfield, Graham. “DNA Patenting: Implications for Public Health Research.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, May 2006, Volume 85, Issue 5.
- ^ "Genetics and Patenting"(Ridge National Laboratory)
