Patenting a gene

[LightFang]

But isn't it like patenting a cooking recipe?

People do that all the time. The chips you eat are patented too, I mean.

 

[Bill3000]

People do that all the time. The chips you eat are patented too, I mean.

No, those are trade secrets.

 

[El_Machinae]

The difference between Ford Explorers and life is that Ford Explorers don't reproduce. So as long as I leave my Ford Explorer be I won't infringe on the patent. This is not always true with life.

Well, if something occurs naturally, I think that voids the patent.
I'm just uneasy that if someone invents a self-reproducing machines, it won't be patentable.

 

[Souron]

Well, if something occurs naturally, I think that voids the patent.

Nope. Genetically engineered crops have to be burned, even if they blew onto your fields. Its a real problem for corn farmers.

I'm just uneasy that if someone invents a self-reproducing machines, it won't be patentable.

The machine would be patentable, but breeding such machines from existing machines should be legal.

 

[LucyDuke]

It's been a bit since I've learned about gene patents, but I think the article is mistaken. When it comes to human genes, you cannot patent a gene (that makes no sense). You can patent a process, and so they're patenting their process of detecting that gene. If you can figure out a way to detect that gene in a different way, I'm sure you can get around the patent.

I'm not about to argue with you, but I feel like I remember reading something about some (other) gene sequence being patented. Not a test for it, but the sequence itself. I remember the same reaction, too - that it was bull.

The people who figured out how to transform cells into transgenic stem cells got a patent for the process, if only to release it to the world for free.

IMO that's the only moral thing to do with these technologies.

I would be less disgusted with this whole thing, where patents are granted for measures that so directly can save lives and health, if the patents' terms were quite short. Sure, make your money for a year or two, recover some R&D, but it's just wrong to sit on something like this and make it prohibitively expensive.

Of course, I'm not super-informed about the topic, those are just my gut feelings.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think your memory is better than mine. I was learning about gene patents well before 2005, and so I guess I was reading predictions about what would happen.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5715/1566?ck=nck

It looks like there are patents being accepted for human genes. That makes no sense to me.

 

[LucyDuke]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/307/5715/1566?ck=nck

Requires a username and password.


I think this is what I read. Although the full article isn't available for free, a "preview" is.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=owning-the-stuff-of-life

As of the middle of last year, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had issued patents to corporations, universities, government agencies and nonprofit groups for nearly 20 percent of the human genome. To be more precise, 4,382 of the 23,688 genes stored in the National Center for Biotechnology Information's database are tagged with at least one patent, according to a study published in the October 14, 2005, Science by Fiona Murray and Kyle L. Jensen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Incyte alone owns nearly 10 percent of all human genes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, we're talking about the same series of reports (sorry for linking to a subscription mag). I guess I'm a cogder in this field. Unless a lawyer on CFC can explain it to me, I'll have to wait a bit before I see someone who knows enough about IP to explain to me why someone can patent a human gene.

 

[LucyDuke]

Yeah, we're talking about the same series of reports (sorry for linking to a subscription mag). I guess I'm a cogder in this field. Unless a lawyer on CFC can explain it to me, I'll have to wait a bit before I see someone who knows enough about IP to explain to me why someone can patent a human gene.

I like to go with "because the law is screwy and the patent office is full of idiots."

 

[GoodGame]

4. how ******ed is this? (hey, I can do sensationalism too! whheee!)

I'll have to sift through this when I have time later. My knee jerk is that this is ******ed in the same way as people trying to scalp probable domain names ahead of real world corporations.

I do support IP being extended to biology, but not per se when it's discoveries of things that are natural, as the naturally occuring, defective proteins in a sick person. I would support IP for a drug that corrects the said condition.

 

[StarWorms]

Science works because information is freely exchanged. Science should not be treated as a business because it will hinder progress.

There are some widely used tools in Biology where you have to pay royalties to someone else just to use the construct. It will likely get to the point where people will substitute second best because of the cost.

 

[Ecofarm]

For a good, short overview of IPRs and crops, I recommend Vandana Shiva's "Stolen Harvest" and "Biopiracy" (each is only like 100 pages).

While I agree with her for the most part (and greatly respect her life's work), I'm glad that IPRs slow the spread of GM dna by restricting access and use.

Perhaps you've noticed, when I think I've "invented" a word or phrase I put (TM) (C) (IPR)

 

[general_kill]

You guys have to watch The Corporation (2003). They talk about copyrighing DNA etc.