What do you think about corporations patenting genes? How can you "discover" what nature made and claim it?

Question

I forget the exact name, but I swear it is true.
There was a news story about two years ago about this guy with a disease who had a certain antibody in his blood. Without his permission or knowledge at that time, they took the "unique' thing in his blood and patented it, and claimed it as their own. I'll research it and post it later. But what do you think about this, not only are they altering and patenting, they are ACTUALLY patenting what nature or flukes of nature make.
How could this be and how do they ethically get away with this?

Answer 1

Actually Raj, you are wrong in this case.

American corporations have indeed patented genes, and DNA sequences, I myself have patents on two genes.

Craig Venter is probably the biggest proponent of this, His company (Applera Corporation - Celera) successfully lobbied against Bill Clinton several years ago after Bill Clinton and Tony Blair held a joint news conference to talk about the human genome project.

Since that time there have been a great many scientists, most notably Sydney Brenner and James Watson who have been fighting to get changes made because scientists in academic institutions will now have to pay fees to do research on certain genes (although to date, not a lot of researchers are doing so).

If you go look at the Yahoo Message boards for certain companies around the time of the Blair-Clinton news conference, you will see a lot of dejected posters because suddenly their intellectual property (the DNA sequences) was worthless. Of course a short time later, Bill Clinton revised his stance in favour of the big companies.

patents on genes can take the form of substance patents, and use patents..............My patents cover both types for two distinct genes.

Craig Venter and Celera have patents on over 1000 genes

Mark Skolnick at the University of Utah/Myriad Genetics has substance patents and use patents for breast cancer genes, and it has made him a multi-millionaire

Answer 2

American intellectual property (IP) law prohibits claiming things that naturally occur in nature, such as salmon, chemicals, or plants.

What the corporations do is patent the process. In the case of genetically-engineered salmon, the corporation has a patent on the means by which they alter the salmon's genes. In the case of our John Q Public, who had his antibodies cloned, the company most likely patented the process by which they altered the components of his immune system, or by which they introduced his antibodies into another living system, and were able to mass-produce it in order to reinject into John Q. Public.

I agree that IP is quite a dicey subject in the realm of genetics, bioengineering, and ethics. But the company cannot legally own something that naturally occurs in nature. Thus, John Q. Public, should he choose to exercise his rights, is well within his rights to sue the company and collect royalty and licensing payments, if in fact what the company patented was a naturally-occuring component of his immune system.

John Q. may, potentially, never have to work another day in his life.

Answer 3

I am torn with this issue personally

Having started my career as a scientist in the early 90s, this wasn't an issue, and I have patented a gene myself that occurs in a kinetoplastid.

Later, I used my knowledge of molecular biology to invest in companies in the biotechnology sector, and one of the great assets a company has is it's intellectual property.

Nowadays, I have several friends who are research scientists/professors in academic or not-for-profit organizations, and some of them are running into roadblocks because big business is patenting naturally occurring biomolecules and making it difficult to really perform the 'free flow of ideas' that scientists crave.

I have made millions in the stock market because companies can do this, yet I have friends who are fighting for their working lives because they can't.

Just another ethical question that has arisen in the biological arena over the past 40 years

Answer 4

Those corporations are the ultimate scavengers I would say. Imagine owning something that they don't own! Mutant or not, those unique genes we have belongs to us, and to us alone! If they could find the cure on how to correct that gene, then, by all means patent your findings. But please, have respect for our ultimate creator, GOD, He is the only one who has the right to patent everything that he has created or created in a very unique way. Good question dude!!! The only ethic I can think of is that it is a violation of moral ethics.

Answer 5

it's true. you can't patent something your body made, but a corporation that discovers it in your body can. it's because the patent laws weren't made for the current era and nobody's seriously updated them. where's the push to do so? to move money from corporations to private individuals? who's going to pay politicians to make laws to do that?

Answer 6

I think that is stupid and frankly out of line. And that corperations who try to do such things need their collective rear ends kicked. Really, all such things do it make it nearly impossible to conduct much-needed medical research!

Answer 7

You can discover it and you can claim that you made the discovery.

Answer 8

c

Answer 9

don't trust business!