Poll
43%
57%
0%
Wow it worked.
One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented. How can you patent something you never invented. You don´t see people patenting gold or silicon when it was discovered.
These patents block other people from researching with these genes and maybe producing a cure for certain diseases.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
That is weird I didn’t know you could patient something that is naturally occurring, if they engineered the gene I could understand.
a patent on a naturally occurring gene is pretty redundant unless you are in the field of pharmacological or medical research. This does not mean that someone owns any part of you or your genetic sequence.
It has to do with the production of those genes. A pharmaceutical company will invest the millions and millions of dollars into genetic research to discover that there may be a genetic cause to a particular disease. To do this, the manufacturing of genes is necessary (Really can't harvest them). The patent basically means that this particular company can manufacture the specific product (the gene) without having to worry that someone else will copy it.
So, like Ush said, the fact that they get to patent for the gene means that they will have the exclusive rights to produce the medicine or treatment.
The funniest part about the gene patenting thing is how paranoid people seem to be about it. Like, what do you think could possibly happen if every gene in the human body was patented? Are you personally interested in creating genes for profit? are you worried about the monopolization of medical research by major corporations? or, as I assume, are you just a pseudo-liberal who likes to rant about anything the pharmaceutical (or any major business) companies do even though you have no idea of what it means.
Originally posted by inimalistI am just wondering in what way that limits freedoms. Also how that is compared to patenting trees or something. Just wondering if that type of patenting is reasonable or...as well the DNA occurs in everybody whether it should not be patentable. Those are some of the questions I have hearing about it for the first time.
a patent on a naturally occurring gene is pretty redundant unless you are in the field of pharmacological or medical research. This does not mean that someone owns any part of you or your genetic sequence.It has to do with the production of those genes. A pharmaceutical company will invest the millions and millions of dollars into genetic research to discover that there may be a genetic cause to a particular disease. To do this, the manufacturing of genes is necessary (Really can't harvest them). The patent basically means that this particular company can manufacture the specific product (the gene) without having to worry that someone else will copy it.
So, like Ush said, the fact that they get to patent for the gene means that they will have the exclusive rights to produce the medicine or treatment.
The funniest part about the gene patenting thing is how paranoid people seem to be about it. Like, what do you think could possibly happen if every gene in the human body was patented? Are you personally interested in creating genes for profit? are you worried about the monopolization of medical research by major corporations? or, as I assume, are you just a pseudo-liberal who likes to rant about anything the pharmaceutical (or any major business) companies do even though you have no idea of what it means.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I am just wondering in what way that limits freedoms. Also how that is compared to patenting trees or something. Just wondering if that type of patenting is reasonable or...as well the DNA occurs in everybody whether it should not be patentable. Those are some of the questions I have hearing about it for the first time.
a tree could be patented I guess, all that would mean though is that no lab anywhere else in the world could recreate those genes without the written consent of the lab who patented them. It doesn't mean that the trees would be cut down or that you couldn't grow one.
It doesn't really control anything, it just assures that if a company spends millions of dollars to learn how to produce and read the genes also get to profit from it. Without it, there would be no investment into the research phase, since everyone could just copy it after you did all the heavy lifting.
The difficult one is more along the lines of food crops. There are several instances where an aboriginal or poor farming community in a third world country have had their particular grain patented (which they had been growing for years and selling). In this case, companies can try to control the distribution of that gain, but courts have supported the farmers in more cases than not. I also don't think this is a problem with North American farms either, and may just be an example of a single case or two...
Originally posted by inimalistBut why should just one company be allowed to research something? If they create something, great go for it. But if two people want to research the same genes why shouldn't they? They kinda grew them themselves in their ass anyways?. Just not sure whether you should be allowed to get a patent on something that grows naturally everywhere. But as I said I don't know much about those laws, and I might be wrong. How was it with Aspirin? Is that just the natural substance that got patented?
a tree could be patented I guess, all that would mean though is that no lab anywhere else in the world could recreate those genes without the written consent of the lab who patented them. It doesn't mean that the trees would be cut down or that you couldn't grow one.It doesn't really control anything, it just assures that if a company spends millions of dollars to learn how to produce and read the genes also get to profit from it. Without it, there would be no investment into the research phase, since everyone could just copy it after you did all the heavy lifting.
The difficult one is more along the lines of food crops. There are several instances where an aboriginal or poor farming community in a third world country have had their particular grain patented (which they had been growing for years and selling). In this case, companies can try to control the distribution of that gain, but courts have supported the farmers in more cases than not. I also don't think this is a problem with North American farms either, and may just be an example of a single case or two...
Originally posted by Bardock42
But why should just one company be allowed to research something? If they create something, great go for it. But if two people want to research the same genes why shouldn't they? They kinda grew them themselves in their ass anyways?. Just not sure whether you should be allowed to get a patent on something that grows naturally everywhere. But as I said I don't know much about those laws, and I might be wrong. How was it with Aspirin? Is that just the natural substance that got patented?
why should a company be able to patent anything?
the whole concept of a patent is to encourage innovation. It costs far more to design, engineer and research a new product than to just copy what is being made in the market. If it is not cost effictive to be innovative, companies wont be.
If you are against innovation, then sure, everyone should be allowed to do anything.
The laws themselves have many problems. Asparin would be patented because it is a chemical formula. Again, since it is produced naturally, if you wanted to get some willow bark, go for it, but if you want to concentrated chemical, get asparin.
A weird addition to all this is a relic of the patent medicine days. It is illegal to say that willow bark with provide relief for any specific medical condition in the way that you can for aspirin. This is because things need to go through FDA approvals (Health Canada here) to be able to say certain things, and I think there are enough other concerns with willowbark that it wouldn't pass that. Its more pronounced in stuff like vegtables, where certain cancer fighting agents have been found, or vitamins in fruits or whatever. They are allowed to put stuff like "Contains flavanoids" or "a good source of vitamin C" but are not allowed to say that they will treat the things that flavanoids or vitamin c would treat.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
As I understood you couldn’t have a patent on a naturally grown substance, is this something that is new with gene research?
I'm honestly not sure if they can patent a full, already living organism (they have patented mice that have been modified to grow cancer really fast and stuff like that). I also don't see how it would matter, unless it comes to the cases of farmers and distribution rights, but I cannot see a court upholding the right of a corporation to patent something that is already being sold on the market...
Originally posted by inimalistThat's the thing. Modified things should be patentable....
I'm honestly not sure if they can patent a full, already living organism (they have patented mice that have been modified to grow cancer really fast and stuff like that). I also don't see how it would matter, unless it comes to the cases of farmers and distribution rights, but I cannot see a court upholding the right of a corporation to patent something that is already being sold on the market...
B-but things that grow everywhere ... well, they don't belong as concepts to anybody. Patents are usually used for inventions. Like, you might get a patent for a steam engine but not for steam.
Patenting Life
Heres an interesting editorial by Author Micheal Crichton, it is on the new york times website, but you have to register so Ill paste it here.
"Patenting Life
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL CRICHTON
Published: February 13, 2007
YOU, or someone you love, may die because of a gene patent that should never have been granted in the first place. Sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it’s only too real.
Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.
Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. 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.
This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency. The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings and some years ago began — to the surprise of everyone, including scientists decoding the genome — to issue patents on genes.
Humans share mostly the same genes. The same genes are found in other animals as well. Our genetic makeup represents the common heritage of all life on earth. You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.
The results have been disastrous. Ordinarily, we imagine patents promote innovation, but that’s because most patents are granted for human inventions. Genes aren’t human inventions, they are features of the natural world. As a result these patents can be used to block innovation, and hurt patient care.
For example, Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months; they cannot crawl or walk, they suffer seizures and eventually become paralyzed and die by adolescence. Formerly there was no test to tell parents if they were at risk. Families enduring the heartbreak of caring for these children engaged a researcher to identify the gene and produce a test. Canavan families around the world donated tissue and money to help this cause.
When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty. The parents did not believe genes should be patented and so did not put their names on the patent. Consequently, they had no control over the outcome.
In addition, a gene’s owner can in some instances also own the mutations of that gene, and these mutations can be markers for disease. Countries that don’t have gene patents actually offer better gene testing than we do, because when multiple labs are allowed to do testing, more mutations are discovered, leading to higher-quality tests.
Apologists for gene patents argue that the issue is a tempest in a teapot, that patent licenses are readily available at minimal cost. That’s simply untrue. The owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease. Not surprisingly, many other researchers choose to study something less expensive.
But forget the costs: 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. And we’ve already mentioned that tests for the BRCA genes for breast cancer cost $3,000. Oh, one more thing: if you undergo the test, the company that owns the patent on the gene can keep your tissue and do research on it without asking your permission. Don’t like it? Too bad.
The plain truth is that gene patents aren’t benign and never will be. When SARS was spreading across the globe, medical researchers hesitated to study it — because of patent concerns. There is no clearer indication that gene patents block innovation, inhibit research and put us all at risk.
Even your doctor can’t get relevant information. An asthma medication only works in certain patients. Yet its manufacturer has squelched efforts by others to develop genetic tests that would determine on whom it will and will not work. Such commercial considerations interfere with a great dream. For years we’ve been promised the coming era of personalized medicine — medicine suited to our particular body makeup. Gene patents destroy that dream.
Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He’s right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support. "
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's the thing. Modified things should be patentable....B-but things that grow everywhere ... well, they don't belong as concepts to anybody. Patents are usually used for inventions. Like, you might get a patent for a steam engine but not for steam.
I don't understand your point...
1) Human genes are produced naturally and thus not subject to patent laws
2) Human genes produced in a lab are patented
3) The only people who have to worry about patented genes are others interested in using the genes, ie, those in medical research.
4) Without these patents, companies would not invest into the research
the steam analogy might be better like this: Sure, you could have a patent for steam, however, you would not be able to prevent the natural distribution of steam. So, if you have a process that creates steam, you can patent that particular steam, so nobody else can use it. You however wouldn't have control over natural steam.
Like, I'm interested in a specific example of what you see as the problem here? How does the fact that whichever gene causes huntingtons is patented by a major corporation affect you?
I think people also need to remember that patents only last for so long. I don't know about the lifespan of a genetic patent, but I cannot see a reason for them being forever exclusive. Like acetometaphin.
Re: Patenting Life
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Heres an interesting editorial by Author Micheal Crichton, it is on the new york times website, but you have to register so Ill paste it here."Patenting Life
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MICHAEL CRICHTON
Published: February 13, 2007
Michael Crichton is not an MD, nor does he work in medical research or in pharmacology. He is not involved in patents.
Unfortunatly, with very few exceptions, he offers no real examples of issues that are not related more to the privatization of health care in America. Basic fearmongering.
Look, he is right, the laws never were meant to apply to human genes or currently living things, and there is a lot of abuse. However, what they were ment to apply to were things like genetically engineered bacteria and other things (cancer mice). New products that really do deserve patent protection.
New things do deserve patent protection, but not things which were already there like genes, eyeballs or toe nails imo.
You don´t have to be a MD to be able to comment on the subject. I'm not a Professor of science but I can hold my own talking about quantum physics and astronomy. Not all the most intelligent people have letters in front of their name´s🙂