|
What’s wrong with patenting human genes?
In February 2007 Congressman Xavier Beccera co-sponsored legislation to end the practice of patenting human genes: the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act (H. R. 977). Why? In 1990 the Human Genome Project led to the discovery of approximately 35,000 genes. Since then, twenty percent of these genes have been patented and, as Congressman Becerra underscores, “we have absolutely no say in what those patent holders do with our genes.”
Here are a few of the Congressman’s concerns (read full statement online):
“1) Gene patents interfere with research on diagnoses and cures. Half of all laboratories have stopped developing diagnostic tests because of concerns about infringing gene patents. One laboratory in four has had to abandon a clinical test in progress because of gene patents. 2) Forty-seven percent of geneticists have been denied requests from other faculty members for information, data, or materials regarding published research. The practice of withholding data detrimentally affects the training of the next generation of scientists. Almost one fourth of doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows reported they have been denied access to information, data and materials. 3) Disease-causing bacteria and viruses have now been patented. The genome of the virus that causes Hepatitis C, for example, is owned. This can lead to major problems, for if someone else wants to introduce inexpensive, timely public health testing for this (or another) common infectious disease, the patent holder can prevent it.
This is a serious problem and it is growing….
Genes are a product of nature and thus, should not be patentable. Patenting the gene for breast cancer (yes, breast cancer genes are patented) or any other gene is the analogous equivalent to patenting water, air, birds or diamonds.
Enacting the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act does not hamper invention, indeed, it encourages it. Medical innovation and economic advancement will occur if the study of genes is allowed to happen unabated. Incredible manifestations of intellectual property will result: medicines, machines, processes – most deserving of recognition, some potentially life-saving, and all worthy of a patent.
Supporters of this legislation continue to pile up. Dr. John E. Sulston, the winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Medicine has said that ‘[f]rom the point of view of scientific research, the chief reason is that genome sequences are about as basic as you can get in terms of biological information. Of no practical use in themselves, they provide fundamental knowledge that has to be interpreted and employed-a tool for future research … Private sequence databases are … of limited value … The consequence of dependence on private databases for fundamental information would be a severe curtailment of scientific networks.’”
To learn more about the roots and ramifications of biotech patenting, including how science-entrepreneurs privately profit from public research funds, click here.
Thank you!
|
|