Patenting Genes and Life

[ensayne]

U.S. Law allows the patenting of genes and life forms, including
mammals. But other countries differ and consider moral issues in
reviewing patent applications; the U.S. does not. Since U.S. Patent
Law is currently under revision, should moral and ethical issues
become part of the patent review process?

The subject is part of a bioethics discussion that will happen tomorrow among MDs, philosophers and other interested individuals. I'd like to see what this board's thoughts are!

[neochronomo]

I've heard this before -- something about pig genes -- but I never understood how it was possible. To quote the US Patent and Trademark Office:

What is a patent?

A patent is an intellectual property right granted by the Government of the United States of America to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States” for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.

Source: Patents

To my knowledge, nobody in the US invented pig genes or aardvarks.

[grandpa]

I've heard this before -- something about pig genes -- but I
never understood how it was possible.
To quote the US Patent and Trademark Office: Source:

In my opinion, people who patent information attampt to steal our ability to learn.

Grandpa h.

[ironeagle]

Why should anyone/entity/business be allowed to patent at all?

[loser]

Or own property?

[Cruella]

Please stick to the topic as outlined in the OP - thank you.

[do not respond]

[Angry Citizen]

I think these patents should be upheld, but not for the duration of most patents. People have a right to exploit their own ingenuity without competitors for a short time (this helps to establish themselves in a market dominated by richer and more established companies), but in the case of genetics, I think a short time should be a few years maximum.

That said, I think the patent should be for traits, not the genetics themselves. For instance, a legitimate patent on genes might be for pig growth speed, not for x gene and y gene and such. This prevents those companies from fiddling with some useless part of the genome and then claiming the patent again.

[ensayne]

In my opinion, people who patent information attampt to steal our ability to learn.

Grandpa h.

OK, to expand on that, the discussion reached the Myriad Genetics case. Essentially, they patented BRCA1 and BRCA2, all and any variations of the gene. The central claim in this that we do not patent genes as they exist in your and my body, they are patenting the gene isolate. Now what the group discussion came down to is whether it was possible for a company like Myriad to make money from the test without patenting the gene. The test was to determine the presence of a gene variant which predisposes the patient to breast cancer. Where is the value? Is it in the information or is it in the test and is making money from the test dependent on having exclusive rights to that information?

BTW the information is public, as so happens with all patents. Anything that is approved for patenting will have its information published. Period. And usually IP infringement is not applied to basic research.

[ensayne]

I think these patents should be upheld, but not for the duration of most patents. People have a right to exploit their own ingenuity without competitors for a short time (this helps to establish themselves in a market dominated by richer and more established companies), but in the case of genetics, I think a short time should be a few years maximum.

That said, I think the patent should be for traits, not the genetics themselves. For instance, a legitimate patent on genes might be for pig growth speed, not for x gene and y gene and such. This prevents those companies from fiddling with some useless part of the genome and then claiming the patent again.

Yea, but information changes quickly anyway. What patents that may have utility now, may have no utility in 5 yrs. The exponential growth in technology and science inevitably leads to patents being useless in less than the 20 yr time frame that these patents are usually given.

[grandpa]

OK, to expand on that, the discussion reached the Myriad
Genetics case.
Essentially, they patented BRCA1 and BRCA2, all and any variations
of the gene....

Okay, what did I say? Any attempt to restrict others from making, using, selling, or distributing something seeks to restrict its information, to the extent that the medium is the message.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Yea, but information changes quickly anyway.
What patents that may have utility now, may have no
utility in 5 yrs.

In other words, it's possible to function properly without strict, long-term adherence to patents.

Grandpa h.