.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
