.jpg)
Today's news: the US supreme court ruled that human DNA cannot be patented, but artificially coped DNA can be claimed as intellectual property.
So what is a biological patent some of you might ask: a patent which provides the owner with exclusivity to making,copying,using and selling the invention or discovery in question for a period of time.
The genes in question were the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes (which in their mutated forms can least to various cancers). The discovery of these genes (as important as they are/may be) cannot be patented in their natural form. After all what gives someone the right to have a patent over something that occurs naturally?
But what about invention of BRCA variants? Synthetically produced BRCA genes and and modified BRCA genes could potentially become patented (as they are not produced naturally- Complementary BRCA genes could also be patented on these grounds).
What would be the cost to society had these genes been patented in their natural form?
It would mean that biotechnology companies would have the ball in their court for genetic testing and risk screening. Which would have a huge impact on cancer patients with respect to BRCA genes.
What would a ban of genetic patenting mean to biotechnology companies?
It could affect investment into gene research and gene therapies. The isolation of genes is mainly used in research to develop screening techniques and gene therapy.
This got me thinking about my previous post on the power on information. It made me realise just how much power scientists potentially have. Especially in cutting edge research. Billions of pounds and the welfare of many patients rests on these patents (as patents can increase the costs of treatment).
I understand the need for patents to protect peoples work and to give them ownership. But I can't help think of underlying selfish motives behind many patents in place today. Particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, patents can increase the cost of life saving drugs putting them out of reach to some of the worlds poorest countries. Yet probably the countries which need the medication the most!
Patenting shows how people can have ownership over information. Yes it protects how the information can be used. But does it perhaps restrict its potential?
What do you think about gene patenting? To what extent is it reasonable?
BBC news article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22895161
In my perspective all of science should be open sourced, freely available to all mankind. However this is somewhat of a fantasy because science in itself is a large complex public/private business. Morally I believe it is wrong to slow down the progress, development and knowledge of scientific discovery. Yet somehow people find a way to morally justify patents.
ReplyDeletePatents are indeed a clever method to gain ownership. Surely it is right to give credit to the labourer of the discovery/invention and provide them with a reward for their work. However is this enough to allow someone to gain exclusive rights to determine what is done with the knowledge?
The fight for or against patents look all too gloomy for me to decide what is to be done. After all having a patent might be the motivation that is leading many companies and researcher to invent and discover in the first place. In the realistic world this system is going to stay, but the international laws that determine what to patent and what to not might need a huge amount of reviewing.
Yes this is exactly the point! I've found this such an interesting thing to explore. Thank you very much for taking the time to read my blog and sharing your comments. I do also agree that the international laws of patenting do need reviewing (A good point to make!). What do you think the patenting of scientific knowledge will look like in 30 years time?
ReplyDeleteSorry to reply so late, I didn't seem to get a notification that you replied to my post.
ReplyDeleteIn reply:
That's a difficult question, patenting will always be a problem if people keep thinking knowledge is worth keeping for money. So if money is as important as it is now patenting will exhibit the same problems, all that will be differing will be the content that is to be patented.
What do you think would happen to the patenting system in the future? What would you like to happen to it?
With the value of money today, I think patenting probably won't change that much. Or at least it won't change rapidly overnight. I hope that information and knowledge will become more freely available. Or that some patents will be shortened to allow solutions to the worlds problems to move along faster.
ReplyDelete