http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/genes/
When I was perusing wired.com today seeing if anything interesting was happening in the digital world, I stumbled upon this compelling store that I have linked above. For those too lazy to go to the website, I’ll briefly give a rundown of the story: the ACLU has been given the OK to sue one of the largest human genome researchers for their patents on around 1/5 of the human genes on the grounds that owning the right to such information is in violation of the first amendment.
Not only do I entirely agree with the judge who ruled it was appropriate to allow the ALCU to sue, but I think this story pertains directly to what we have recently been discussing in class.
How do we expect to ever advance ourselves if only a select few have access to some of the most important information in the world? Who is to say that these people working for this research company are the most able to utilize the information they patented? It is very likely that given the opportunity, other scientists could have used the genes owned to have made astronomical advances in science. Who knows cancer could have been cured by now.
Information like this cannot be locked up. I do not always agree with some of the tenets discussed in this class, particularly in relation to sharing music and movies, but I believe this case is very clear. Information like this is for saving lives not making money.
We talked about IP and human genetics in my Biology & Society class last semester and it’s pretty scary. Apparently one fourth of human genes have been patented since the end of 2005. I looked back at my notes and from what I can remember, the U.S. only requires scientists to make “one true utility claim” (i.e. a broad idea of what they plan to do with a gene, such as test it to see what it binds with, etc.) in order to get the rights to all future uses of the gene. To claim a patent to a gene, you have to successfully isolate it, which is considered an act of artifice and not a product of nature.
As far as owning patents on genes, there’s a huge difference in private vs. public ownership. Say the NIH and government scientists patent a certain gene (which they can do because of the Bayh-Dole Act) – they would do so to make it available for research. Pharmaceutical companies patent genes to commercialize on it and charge exorbitant fees for research rights.
I remember discussing how Myriad Genetics owns the gene patent for the genes that cause breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2). Glad to see that the ACLU is challenging their claims.