The Responsibility Project^®. Exploring what it means to do the right thing

Who Owns Your Genes?

19 Comments

July 2, 2009 by Kathy McManus

Knowledge is power, but is owning it responsible?

That’s one of the questions at the core of a recent federal lawsuit challenging the right of a company to patent—in effect to own--human genes.

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against Myriad Genetics, which owns the patents for two genes linked to hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. The ACLU contends that patenting genes is unconstitutional and hinders research into a cure for cancer.

“Patents were designed to protect human inventions, and you can’t invent the gene,” said an ACLU attorney. “What they have really patented is knowledge.”

Myriad also owns the patent for testing the two genes, which means a patient can’t get a second opinion test—before a mastectomy or ovarian surgery--because no other company can legally perform the $3,000 analysis. Six breast cancer patients have joined the lawsuit, suing along with 100,000 scientists, pathologists, geneticists, and women’s health groups, all opposed to gene patenting.

Myriad says it will vigorously defend what it calls “our intellectual property rights.” The company noted that it held 23 genetic patents, all awarded by the U.S. Patent Office, which has been granting genetic ownership rights for years. “It may be a shock to people outside the industry,” said a genetics expert, but “this has been the established way of doing business.”

The sticky helix of ethical questions prompted newspaper readers to weigh in. “If you create a novel gene from scratch, patenting makes sense,” wrote one. “But patenting something you’ve just taken a look at? It seems an awful lot like patenting gravity.” “The plaintiffs’ real motivation is that they want cheaper access to this technology,” wrote another, which “we wouldn’t have but for the promise of patent protection,” which requires massive amounts of money risked in research and development.

Tell us what you think: Should human genes be patented? If a company spends millions of dollars cracking a genetic code, what should its rights be? Where would you draw the line between what can and cannot be patented?

19 Comments

What do you think? Leave a comment

• July 4, 2009 by Michelle Salois

  I agree with the comment: If you create a novel gene from scratch, patenting makes sense,” wrote one. “But patenting something you’ve just taken a look at? It seems an awful lot like patenting gravity. Let them patent the technology for identifying the gene, then someone else will have to invent a better technology to do it or pay a license fee for the original. Corn, butterfly, human, no human made the genes, no human should own them.

  Reply

• July 7, 2009 by Captain Bravo!

  Although it's underhanded, that company's discoveries are considered legitimate by the government. While jacked pricing is dirty in this case it is legal and should be respected. As for patents while I only think objects or inventions created should be patented the law sees it differently in many circumstances, for instance if one were to write a computer program one could recieve a patent for it even though one did not create the computer or the process of coding, all that was done was find a new use. The same principles apply, although they did not make the gene they found a new use or way of testing it, the precedent favors the company. C'est la vie.

  Reply

  • May 18, 2010 by W Castilleja

    "for instance if one were to write a computer program" This would in effect be creating something, would it not? If so a patent would be appropriate because it was created by a person. I could see patenting a technique, or a particular way of using the gene in question, but not the gene itself.

    Reply

  • May 20, 2010 by Colin Wallace

    There is a difference between a copyright (You'd copyright the computer program) and a patent.

    Reply

• July 10, 2009 by Katina Kargakos

  Whatever happened to "the greater good"? I understand that many dollars are spent on research, however patenting genes is morally wrong. We did not create the gene...how can we patent it? My impression of science is that we research. We learn. We discover cures and better ways of doing things so that we may share them with the world and dollars spent on research are compensated by selling products or procedures. This is just another example of how corrupt we have become. Greed has taken the place of what should be a humanitarian profession. My heart goes out to the cancer patients who cannot get a second opinion. It's very sad. Good luck to all pursuing the lawsuit.

  Reply

• July 12, 2009 by Stephen

  Genes should be PUBLIC DOMAIN. After all, these genes should have been around since the beginning of the human population. This should qualify as a "prior art description" for revoking the patent. I think Biotech companies go too far in terms of what they patent. I feel that yes, some things should have patent protection such as inventions and the like, but genes of bodies and animals, that should remain public and not be patentable.

  Reply

  • September 30, 2011 by Alan

    I agree that said genes should be public domain. My problem with patents on genes is if someone is wanting a DNA test it could become quit expensive if all these companies asked for money on the genes they patent they own, when they only looked at it.

    Reply

• July 15, 2009 by Nasim

  It is against the law to simply patent something that is found in nature (such as genes). But since it is not natural for genes to exist on their own some people feel that secluding DNA in a test tube makes it right to patent it when often times the gene can still be found in people. This is (in my opinion) very wrong. By patenting genes people are purposely causing setbacks in genetic exploration. Not only that but they are hurting actual people women with breast cancer should not be refused a second opinion; by refusing them a second opinion they are refusing them knowledge. Knowledge and facts themselves are NOT patentable and in a roundabout, under-handed, and sneaky way that is exactly what is going on.

  Reply

• July 23, 2009 by PascalGilbert

  Darn, that sound's so easy if you think about it.

  Reply

• January 23, 2010 by Lucy Smythe

  The ACLU contends that patenting genes is unconstitutional and hinders research into a cure for cancer.

  Reply

• February 5, 2010 by Anony

  Ok so grats on cracking the code.. Screwing people over finacially? My solution is to imprison these people or give them the death sentence. Do the world a favor and kill yourself.

  Reply

• March 3, 2010 by Michael W Stokes

  For more than 20 years the hospital has been taking your newborn child's blood and sending off to a laboratory without your or my consent. What are they really doing with it? They can take the DNA and create a bio - virus that can kill just that particular person. They can also reproduce viruses that can be injected in you during a flu shot or by way of injection. All the way back into the 1930's there has been something called eugenics taking place, Now you hear people like Ted Turner, Bill Gates saying out right we need to reduce the population to 500,000 or less. And suggesting that it be done via Injection. There fear is C02 and that is what you breath out. It has now been found that C02 is not a problem. Search what I am saying. In the end it is a violation or you and your child's rights (Constitutional) to do this with out your consent. Article 4 The right of the people to be secure in there persons ,houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons things to be seized. Key The right of the people to be secure in there persons. Just think of all of the things they can do with your DNA. They could set you up they could sell the DNA information to Insurance companys and they will not cover you. Think about this! It should be stoped.

  Reply

• March 20, 2010 by DwayneD.L.Rabon

  Well, Patents only last for so long, assumably about 7 years In the U.S.A., in some countries there is no such thing as a patent, what defines your gains of a product or from a product is your applied skill or meathod and reputation of preformance. one company may have recieveid a patent for a chemical, but it only takes the changing of one base in a gene to be different than the applied for patent. however one base difference may create a big difference in preformance of a chemical in assumably. I would assume that granting of any patent for a gene would be restricted to the packing of said gene,relavant to the manner or meathod in its application, for Example; gene is housed in saline, or protein container and is adminstered at 73 degrees celsius, base sequence is A24,64G,9U,34T single stranded, of which transcipt RNA is adminstered at 32 degrees celsius 30 minutes after gene application to host enviroment. The Physical gene is natural to earth enviroment and is not patent able for commercial profit, at least untill a fomula is determined which can distiguish between naturaly occuring and that of true invention.(true invention is the hallmark of a patent). In the case of Human genes, the individual human is the natural patent holder of thier own genes, wherein that gene comes from thier PHYSICAL person, if they own a pig or bird then they own the gene of that pig or bird, someone else has to get their own pig or bird. Children are under the ownership of their parents, untill becoming of legal age, however nature defines that ownership to about the age of 12 or 14, the age of puberty. Custody is a event after natural age and may exstend untill the death of the child or relavant life time. DwayneD.L.Rabon

  Reply

• April 5, 2010 by tina raymond

  I think that this should be overturned immediately so that women can get the best information. No one company sould own a patent on a gene that wasn't fabricated but is part of somone's DNA. This is outrageous that this was allowed to happen and women shoud be writing their congress person immediately to inform them of this injustice.

  Reply

• April 6, 2010 by Will Wilson

  Thanks to 60 Minutes broadcast on Easter Sunday, I now know a little about the problem and debate. I have to say it really upset me and I am still upset about our government allowing patents on human genes. I find the original ruling to have been overly interpreted and the company's that have been granted the patents are what I find disgusting with big business, no morals and no conscience. They are opportunistic and predatory in their over zealous protection of something they should not own. Genes should never be considered owned by any one or any company. Shame on the Patent Office and shame on the biotech industry. I am rarely in support of the ACLU, but this is one of those times, they are doing the right thing.

  Reply

Tell us what you think.