A new study in this week's Science reveals that a full 20 percent of the human genome has been patented in the United States. Of that 20 percent of patented genes -- about 4,000 in total -- around 63 percent are assigned to private firms while 28 percent are held by universities. Researchers patent genes as valuable research tools, for use in diagnostic tests, or to discover and produce new drugs. In the U.S., an isolated DNA sequence is treated by the patent system like other natural chemical products, such that a sequence of DNA can be patented in exactly the same way as a new medicine purified from a plant source could be patented. The debate surrounding gene patenting is waged on one hand by advocates who claim that gene patents promote the disclosure of ideas by making important uses of genetic sequences publically known. In the critic corner, some warn that overly broad patents can obstruct future innovation by preventing researchers from investigating alternative uses for a patented gene. If one institution owns the rights to a gene, both academic and industry scientists may face a prohibitively complex process to obtain permission to use its sequence in their research. What are your thoughts on the debate?
[Via snowdeal]
1. It is patently wrong to hold patents on genes (products) we all share, because research will be hindered by the various universities and businesses that hold these patents, thus wasting time, money and even lives in the process.
Genes are not the inventions or creations of these businesses or universities, they are shared by all and thus the property of all. I can see a reason for patents on gene products or gene therapies, but not on the genes themselves. This is a travesty for all people. Ignorance and avarice may be bliss for these companies and facilites but will, no doubt, lead to excess suffering for people in general.
Posted at 11:06AM on Nov 1st 2005 by Mark Stanislawski