Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

British Columbia Bows To Breast Cancer Patent 453

Posted by Hemos from the bow-down-before-the-one-you-serve dept.
dlek writes "Bowing to pressure from Utah's Myriad Genetics, the government of British Columbia has stopped offering a test for hereditary breast cancer. The price of the test, which looks at two genes responsible for the cancer, has tripled to $3500US. Our public health care system can't afford to pay so we're sending people to Ontario, which is ignoring the patent. People are disappointed we're not doing the same... previous Slashdot mentions are on their original claim and on the Curie Institute's challenge to the patent."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Columbia Bows To Breast Cancer Patent More

British Columbia Bows To Breast Cancer Patent

Comments Filter:

  • We're gonne be seeing a lot of this (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TerryAtWork ( 598364 ) <research@aceretail.com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:34AM (#4494750)
    Canada's pinko health system (which I refuse to live without) colliding with our grasping new capitalism (which I also refuse to live without - although I'm embarrassed by it...)

  • Previous Art, Anyone? (Score:5, Funny)

    by theBraindonor ( 577245 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:36AM (#4494765) Homepage
    Wouldn't the fact that women's cells have been duplicating those genes for thousands of years count as previous art?

    Aparently not...

    • Re:Previous Art, Anyone? (Score:3, Informative)

      by zik0 ( 450949 )
      No, because they use a different method. The patent covers the method of detecting these two genes. If you can do the same with another method, you are free to do so.

    • Re:Previous Art, Anyone? (Score:4, Funny)

      by antitribue ( 524882 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:55AM (#4494901)
      Wouldn't the fact that women's cells have been duplicating those genes for thousands of years count as previous art?

      I am not sure I can answer that without first looking at, and maybe touching the previous art!
    • No it means that they're engaged in contributory infringement by existing. And, they'll need a license for each one of th 10,000 human body patents to reproduce.

  • Gene Patent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:38AM (#4494773) Homepage
    So what they patent the gene, I'm not copying it, or even using it (by choice), I'm just checking to see if it is there.

    Since when is it a violation of a patent to see if the patented "invention" is located in a certain area?

    Now if the patent is for a specific test to check for that gene, as opposed to the gene itself, that would make sense, but the articles seam not to point it that way.

    I hope my government wises up and just disallows the patenting of preexisting 'inventions'

    • Re:Gene Patent (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:44AM (#4494819) Journal
      Since when is it a violation of a patent to see if the patented "invention" is located in a certain area?

      Since now. The gene itself (and it's potentially oncogenic mutation) has been patented. The company that holds the patent requires health care agencies to send samples to them for testing. They have refused to license the testing, preferring to cut out any middlemen. Further, since they assert that their patent for the gene itself is valid, they are suing anyone who performs any alternate test for the mutated gene.

      As an interesting aside, not all Canadian provinces are completely spineless. Ontario is refusing to pay royalties and is conducting its own tests. We'll see how the lawsuits play out there.

      • I'm one of the unlunky people born with the XYZ mutation, as a result my body checks for the mentioned gene several million times a day.

        This is becoming a costly process, with the royalties I have to pay to conduct my own tests.

        I have had the gene for 25 years, can I claim prior art?
    • It seems to me we need some middle ground between the current patent system and the absolute position which states that intellectual property rights are wrong and all information should be free.

      Under capitalism, every company can only raise money to do research if their investors in the heavy start up costs believe they will get a return. Now for every company that seems to have an outrageous patent there are a minimum of 10 who will take investors money from pension funds, private investor etc. (ultimately you and me) and never produce any return because their research will ultimately never result in anything. therefore there is an absurd amount of pressure on the companies who do succeed in making a discovery, and the returns have to be in the several thousand percent mark, hence this type of case. In order to combat this, we can't just go on moaning, we need to suggest alternatives. Some suggestions would be;
      • Governments fund genetic research regardless of the profit and loss - remember a minimum of 90% of this type of research produces nothing, are you prepared to vote for this?
      • We work out a new system whic doesn't pay according to patents but still gives investors a return on very speculative work, to stand a chance of continuing funding in this area we would need to give investors a return of 20-30 times their initial investment, would this be acceptable?
      • The present system - It is very easy to criticize but there is probably more money going in to this type of research now then at any time in human history. People love advances which would save their lives but I suspect more money is spent on developing the next model of Ford Focus then on solutions for Breast Cancer, if you want this to change then you have to stand up and be counted and stopping one system which is pumping money into medical research without coming up with a viable alternative isn't helping anyone at present.

    • Re:Gene Patent (Score:3, Informative)

      by gordini ( 619265 )
      We all have the gene. Actually we all recieved one copy from mom and one from dad at the moment of conception. Therefore all of our cells have 2 copies of the gene (BRCA1 for example). this gene does something beneficial for us when it works properly. however, it may become alter and not work properly. It will then be called a mutated gene. The patent that Myriad has resulted because they "discovered" the gene. thjeir patent allows only them to look for "mutations" in the gene. This is what is called genetic testing. For example if you have a lot of breast and ovarian cancer in your family, you could be tested to see if you carried the mutated copy of BRCA1. if you did, then your risk for cancer would be greater than average. Since Myriad wants all of the worlds tests to be supplied by them. at great cost, many individuals will not be able to access this discovery for their benefit.

  • You can bet... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by allism ( 457899 ) <alice.harrisonNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:38AM (#4494782) Journal
    If this were testicular cancer screening, it would be covered...

    • Of course it would be covered, who wants to see that?

      I got nothin'..

    • Re:You can bet... (Score:5, Funny)

      by the way, what're you ( 591901 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:07AM (#4494976)
      If this were testicular cancer screening, it would be covered...

      So essentially you're saying there is a vas deferens between the way male and female patients are treated? That's just nuts.

      • I think he's refering to the GST (goods and services tax). It's kina screwed.

        See, one doughnut is taxed, but six or more doughnuts aren't. A loaf of bread is taxed, but flour, eggs, yeast and milk aren't. Women's hygene products are taxed (tampons, pads etc) but men's hygene products (razors, shave cream) aren't.

        Our Parlamentcritters tend to favour Men in making new laws I believe was the point.

  • Got a letter from my federal rep this weekend... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:39AM (#4494786)
    I wrote Larry Combest a few months ago complaining about the whole Berman thing. The form letter he sent back went on and on about how important intellectual property such as copyrighted media, trademarks, and PATENTS are to the economy, business, and corporate health of the nation.

    Okay, Larry, Here's a real good example of how patents are HURTING health for our beer-loving neighbors to the north.

    Yeah, we'll pay to bail out a company that's committed felonies, but we won't pay extra so that some poor woman can have protect her healthy by having breast-cancer screeings. Fuckwits.
    • Nice to know that your life means absolutely nothing to the economy, business, and corporate health of the nation.
      If everyone had to take even one day off all at once for cancer treatments, IP would count for shit. Why can't these people see this?
    • Well, shame on the women that stole this patented gene and implanted it in themselves. They should have known the consequences of stealing intellectual property. They should feel lucky that the US government doesn't break down their front door and haul them out of their homes and throw them in prison for the theft.

      (That was sarcasm, in case you mods out there were even thinking about modding this as flamebait.)

    • Re:Got a letter from my federal rep this weekend.. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kevlar ( 13509 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:06AM (#4495514)

      On the contrary. Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties? How will this encourage research? Money drives the world for a reason. Now I admit that $3500 to test for a certain gene is quite steep, but we do not know how much money was put-forth to determine the offending genes.

      If anyone could test for these genes without paying royalties, then the guy who made the discovery will not have ANY incentive to do the same in the future! This applies to drug companies as well. Sure we pay steep prices for them, but an enourmous amount of money goes into their development.

      Now on another note, the Canadian health system has much worse problems than this patent issue. If my mother/father died of cancer and I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500. Hell, people pay more money for lasic surgery but bad eyesight will never kill you.

      • Re:Got a letter from my federal rep this weekend.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:28AM (#4495741) Homepage
        >I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500

        Because you _have_ $3500, dumbass. If you were a millionaire, I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem plunking down 500$ for toothpaste every night too.

        > Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties?

        Said it before, say it again. Most of the groundwork for these discoveries are done using your and my public tax money at universities. Companies research the last mile when they sniff money, and then lock the 'exclusivity' of the test/drug down with a patent. Its a joke. Patents didn't exist years ago, and that didn't prevent humans from discovering new things.

        The way people like you talk, scientists and inventors never existed before pay cheques. What a load of hooey.

        • Most of the groundwork for these discoveries are done using your and my public tax money at universities.

          Govt grants are one thing. Universities on the other hand have every right to patent what they've funded. Provide me with proof that the majority of these patent applications come from public funds and I'll say you have an argument.

          About patents not existing "years ago", that is inherently false. Patents have existed for over 400 years, throughout which the entire industrial revolution took place.
          Even Galileo patented things [firenze.it]

          You go out and do R&D on a drug or gene test for some rampant disease, but you do it for free, on your own dollar and your own time. Then lets see what your argument is. I guarentee you'll demand a royalty for your life's work...

          If someone makes a million bucks, its usually because they deserve it. This is of course excluding all the Enron corporate corruption issues that are plaguing the economy today. There's nothing better than a self made millionaire because they've produced something and given us all a job.

      • Re:Got a letter from my federal rep this weekend.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Deagol ( 323173 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @12:26PM (#4496308) Homepage
        If anyone could test for these genes without paying royalties, then the guy who made the discovery will not have ANY incentive to do the same in the future! This applies to drug companies as well. Sure we pay steep prices for them, but an enourmous amount of money goes into their development.

        Yeah, it's not like any truly innovative discovery or method would result is being paid big lecture fees, possible Nobel Prize nominations, textbook royalties, or anything. Especially in the areas of deadly diseases, right? Yeah, of all the biology and med students I've met throughout college, none of them ever had the desire to cure/detect a disease that killed a best friend or family member -- they simply wanted to own new home in the burbs, with a 4-car garage and have a SUV in eash stall.

        It's bloody greed (on a corporate level, more likely, than a personal scientist one), plain and simple. I was driving to work about a year ago and listening to NPR. One of the quick news blurbs was that some huge drug company's board had decided to can all further research on treatment for some really bad disease (multiple sclerosis, I think). Why? Because one of the patents on the process was about to expire!

        "Mr. chairman, I vote we stop all research into this horrible, degenerative disease because we won't be able to recoup our costs. No, the fact that our Viagra clone and hair regeneration products will cover the costs tenfold -- we need to spend that money on TV commercials and free samples to physicians."

      • Quoth kevlar: Who is going to develop new tests for hereditary diseases if the entire world can legitimately test for it without royalties?

        You're missing the point, kevlar. Everyone repeat after me:

        Technology is
        enabling.

        Legislation is curtailing.

        Technology gives us power.

        Legislation takes it away.

        Those who seek power for the good of Mankind will pursue science and technology.

        Those who seek power for the good of themselves will pursue rules, regulations, and domination.

        More quotes from kevlar: If anyone could test for these genes without paying royalties, then the guy who made the discovery will not have ANY incentive to do the same in the future!

        Is this guy doing research for the sake of his own back pocket, or is he doing it to help others? If the former, he should be denied the patent on moral grounds. If the latter, your argument doesn't hold any weight, since supposedly helping others is the incentive.

        Now on another note, the Canadian health system has much worse problems than this patent issue. If my mother/father died of cancer and I knew this test would determine my risk, I'd fork over the $3500.

        That is, of course, your choice. Just please don't force it on the rest of us, OK?

  • Uh-ho! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MouseR ( 3264 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:42AM (#4494800) Homepage
    This is the kind of issue that cries for a flamatory public debate.

    On one side, the right to cure and get cured at a reasonable cost or, even, any expense.

    On the other, right right to maintain a certain cash flow from products who carry a usually very expensive R&D cycle.

    Patents on medical products are a touchy subject.

    I think the pharmaceutical world needs a new kind of patent protection system. Something that allows any company, by law, to produce the covered material by a patent, but forcing them to return some royalties for the duration of the patent.

    In other words, legally allow copying of patented products but enforcing a royalty payment to the inventor of the product.

    This way, big research companies can be assured that their investments are covered, and patients are assured they'd get access to the care they require.

    • Re:Uh-ho! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Idarubicin ( 579475 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:51AM (#4494868) Journal
      Patents on medical products are a touchy subject.

      The problem is that this isn't a patent on a medical product, it's a patent on a gene itself. The patent holder is asserting that any test for the mutated gene falls under the patent.

      They are also refusing to license other companies to test for the gene--they want to cut out any middlemen. Even if you develop an alternate test, you still can't use it without their permission (which they are refusing to give.)

      This sort of patent has a chilling effect on basic research, as well. Why bother developing novel treatments that are already sure to be covered under someone else's patent? Why fund research on this gene if there's no chance of a return on investment? How do you complete your research project when you find out that someone wants royalties on the genetic material you're using?

      • Compromise? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by emil ( 695 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:06AM (#4494967)

        How about a compromise? Any researcher finding a mechanism of disease inherent within a genetic sequence can patent the sequence and receive no more than $100 per test for the diseased genes.

        Or, if that amount is too low for some of the more esoteric diseases (which will not be often tested), how about a sliding scale?

        We should have some legislative mechanism in place to reduce the maximum payout per test as the number of tests performed rises.

        It is absolutely unreasonable to grant an exclusive patent on my genetic function (and I assume that men carry this gene sequence as well, even if it is inactive) without my personal consent. If the drug companies refuse to compromise on this issue, then they should expect wholesale disregard for their patents, as is proving to be the case.

    • I like your basic idea, but it seems to me that what the pharma companies and the govt see as a reasonable rate of return will be two very different numbers. The pharma companies will say that they need to generate lots of income, so that their shareholders can make out like bandits, like Pfizer's did (I mean financially of course).

      The government will say no, you should make a return related to your cost of capital. Then the companies will inflate the cost of development of their drugs, or will throw in all their R&D from failed/rejected drugs (like Hollywood studios tend to throw all their costs into the budgets of successful films, so that a percentage of the net is equal to zero). In general , it will all be a regulatory nightmare, which could make tax-financed healthcare for poor people seem positively libertarian.

      The other thing to bear in mind is that the drug companies benefit a lot from government sponsored research, often not in the countries where they pay their taxes. Again, this is hard to quantify, but unless the companies are really willing to show all the numbers for their costs, in an honest way, then there's no harm in using this as an argument against firms that whine about how they need to cover their costs.

  • Valuing profits more than human life? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sheetrock ( 152993 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:42AM (#4494804) Homepage Journal
    I think we might very well have hit rock-bottom. I mean, I suppose there has always been an empowered bunch screwing over the masses to stay in power, but it doesn't make much sense that we've got enough food to eat and enough science to keep people well and we're willing to hold it all back like this.

    I never much liked the need for the idea of intellectual property (although I'm hard-pressed to come up with an alternate system that'll work as well on the whole), but somehow when we're talking about lives rather than Napster and hearing the same exact story from the people who 'own' the IP (we just wouldn't have the incentive to produce if we don't have total control) it makes the whole idea sound pretty dumb.

  • What's the legality of this? According to the other article, there's a European patent on this procedure as well, so none of those "the queen of England runs Canada" cop outs :)

  • Tough choice. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by swagr ( 244747 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:45AM (#4494826) Homepage
    From one perspective, this test wasn't available a few years ago. A company spent the money and time to make it available, and now they want a return on their investment. If it was a new method of toasting bread, we wouldn't care...
    but it's breast cancer detection/prevention so it's not "business" anymore. The question is: where is (or can there be) a happy balance between the pharmaceuticals screwing us, and us screwing them?

    • Re:Tough choice. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by afidel ( 530433 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:57AM (#4494914)
      If they had just patented a method of detecting the gene it would not be so much of a problem, but they have patented the gene itself and its genetic mutation. This is as bad as business method patents or patents on numbers (numbers, not ways of generating the numbers there is a big difference) and in some ways is much worse because it negetivly effects the health of a potential 51% of British Columbias population.

    • Re:Tough choice. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rknop ( 240417 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:57AM (#4494916) Homepage

      From one perspective, this test wasn't available a few years ago. A company spent the money and time to make it available, and now they want a return on their investment.

      The question I'd want to ask is: how much of that research was funded by grants, federal, governmental or otherwise? I don't really know, but I'd like to know. If any significant fraction was funded by grants, then the patent is "corporate welfare" in its most evil form.

      I've heard the assertion made that some large fraction of the "important" drugs have been developed partially or largely under grant support. (I.e., not the latest wrinkle on an effective allergy medicine, but the new breakthroughs, AIDS drugs, etc.) I'd like to see some documentation of this. If it is true, then it really is a crime that patents are being given out to the companies that took these grants to help do the research that pays for the patents.

      I know I will get flamed by a lot of people saying that I'm trying to kill the spirit of Amercian innovation and squelch off just the thing that allowed all these drugs to be developed in the first place-- because I've been flamed for that before. I don't know that I do have the answers. But I also reject the flat-out assertion that under no system than the current patent system would we be able to have a vigorous program of innovation in pharmaceutical research. It is plain that the current system is horribly broken (unless you're heavily invested in pharmaceutical companies and are more concerned with your portfolio than with what the research is really supposed to be for). It is downright foolish to refuse to ask how we might be able to fix that system simply because we're afraid that we could end up breaking it worse.

      -Rob

      • If any significant fraction [of research leading to a new and useful invention] was funded by grants, then the patent is "corporate welfare" in its most evil form.

        Pharma companies that buy the exclusive rights to research generally pay back federal research grants as part of the price of such exclusive rights. Thus, the "grants" are more like loans.

        • ???? Research would be grand if you only had to pay when it worked out, wouldn't it?
        • No they are still a subsidy. If the grant results in nothing, the taxpayer is out the funds provided by the grant, and loses like any private invester. If the grant will result in a windfall for the company the taxpayer sees no return on his investment, the grant is repayed, but the funds will likely be "reinvested" in another grant untill the money is lost on a bad "investment"


          It will cease being a subsidy when the taxpayer recives the same benifts as a private invester, that is some kind of return on a sucessful investment. This can take one of two forms. Payments to the treasury out of royalities, or the method I prefer a reduction in the life of the patent. IE, if 50% of the development cost is borne by the taxpayer, the life of the patent is reduced by 50%.

  • Related note? Bush & prescription drugs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by uncleFester ( 29998 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:47AM (#4494844) Homepage Journal
    Slightly related news? I turned on Bloomberg this AM and found the president discussing generic prescription drugs [bloomberg.com] and how the drug companies are abusing the stay process in order to maintain a hold on the drug going generic. If he's starting to look at the generic-ization of meds, perhaps it's the tip of the iceberg for things such as this.

    Disclaimer: I'm a right-winger, but dunno about this idea.. after all drug companies do take finantial risks to make new medications. But holding potential benefits for people's health over their head in the name of pure profit bothers me. Like the Microsoft stuff, it possibly sets a bad precedent.. I hate m$' heavy-handed tactics but having the government step in seems a bad idea.

    -fester
    • Guess it comes down to one simple thing: How much is a human life worth?

      Economically I am sure one can put a price tag on it, the question is should you?


    • > Slightly related news? I turned on Bloomberg this AM and found the president discussing generic prescription drugs [bloomberg.com] and how the drug companies are abusing the stay process in order to maintain a hold on the drug going generic. If he's starting to look at the generic-ization of meds, perhaps it's the tip of the iceberg for things such as this.

      > Disclaimer: I'm a right-winger, but dunno about this idea.. after all drug companies do take finantial risks to make new medications. But holding potential benefits for people's health over their head in the name of pure profit bothers me.

      The generic drugs issue (which, BTW, has been in the news and gaining momentum for a year or two now) is a slightly special issue. Essentially the pharm companies have figured out a loophole in patent law that lets them effectively re-patent a drug right when its original patent runs out, thus making it illegal for others to produce it under a generic name. The trick, called "patent evergreening" [iirusa.com], involves things like introducing very minor changes of dubious effectiveness and patenting the "new" variant. Google should tell you more.

      • This article at The New Republic argues that pharmaceutical companies are reaching for the low hanging fruit of rebranding drugs they already have created, rather than actually creating new drugs: Where Have All the New Meds Gone? Drug Abuse [thenewrepublic.com].

        If the NIHCM report doesn't convince you, just turn on your television and note which drugs are being marketed most aggressively. Ads for Celebrex may imply that it will enable arthritics to jump rope, but the drug actually relieves pain no better than basic ibuprofen; its principal supposed benefit is causing fewer ulcers, but the FDA recently rejected even that claim. Clarinex is a differently packaged version of Claritin, which is of questionable efficacy in the first place and is sold over the counter abroad for vastly less. Promoted as though it must be some sort of elixir, the ubiquitous "purple pill," Nexium, is essentially AstraZeneca's old heartburn drug Prilosec with a minor chemical twist that allowed the company to extend its patent. (Perhaps not coincidentally researchers have found that purple is a particularly good pill color for inducing placebo effects.)

        ...

        A better explanation for the pharmaceutical slump is a shift in priorities toward marketing, particularly since the FDA first allowed companies to directly target consumers five years ago. According to data collected by Alan Sager, a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health, the number of research and development (R&D) employees at companies making patented drugs declined slightly between 1995 and 2000, while the number of people working in marketing shot up 59 percent. "Drug companies trumpet the value of breakthrough research, but they seem to be devoting far fewer resources than their press releases suggest," says Sager.

        Moreover, drug companies have learned that when they can't create a new drug to treat an existing illness, they can create a new illness to treat with existing drugs. GlaxoSmithKline's multimillion-dollar promotion of anxiety disorder as a pernicious national problem enabled the company to make billions more selling Paxil--a drug most experts believe is needed by only a small fraction of the people who take it. Unimed is busy pushing the idea that there's a national problem called male menopause--a problem that just happens to be treatable by a testosterone gel the company makes. The gel is currently FDA-approved for men with rare--and thus relatively unprofitable--problems such as underdeveloped testes.
        ...

        The explosion has a couple of causes. One is simply growth in the field, but another is that companies have found they can significantly extend patents through various legal maneuvers--from agreeing to test on children (Congress passed this law to create incentives for companies to perform separate tests on kids) to filing new patent applications on old drugs about to lose their protection. By slightly tweaking Prilosec into Nexium, AstraZeneca got several years of additional protection for a hot-selling prescription drug. "Companies today have found that the return on investment for legal tactics is a lot higher than the return on investment for R&D," says Sharon Levine, the associate executive director of the HMO Kaiser Permanente. "Consumers today are paying an inordinate premium under the guise of the creating the stream of innovation in the future. But it's actually funding lawyers."

        Even more important, the patent morass may be blocking new lines of research altogether. Every time a company wants to pursue research on a certain biological process, or even the individual genes involved, it has to find out who owns the patents and the price of a license, if one is even available. Last year Peter Ringrose, then the chief scientific officer at Bristol Myers Squibb, told The New York Times that there were "more than 50 proteins possibly involved in cancer that the company was not working on because the patent holders either would not allow it or were demanding unreasonable royalties." Rebecca Eisenberg, a law professor at the University of Michigan, has called this the "tragedy of the anti-commons," with companies and universities grabbing property that should remain in the public domain.

  • What about donations? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:49AM (#4494853)
    I've been thinking twice now about donating money to HIV or breast cancer research. I think I've heard of many cases were people supported these programs but when the research was complete, a patent was assigned to the final product. The research that received our support is going to make someone billionaire. You guys are talking about Canada. Think about countries like India, Argentina, etc. These are countries that are in very bad shape. They can't afford paying the high cost of these treatments in US dollars. Is there any kind of law that prevents research programs that were supported by donations to patent their final program? Wouldn't it be considered unethical to say the least?

  • Special Clause (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Magic Yak ( 559288 ) <advocatanostra@NosPAM.copper.net> on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:50AM (#4494855)
    It would be nice to have a "special clause" added in the event of life saving techniques. For example, a person that may be labeled "high risk" would be able to have the testing done irregardless of the patent. However, if the population were to screened en masse, the patent would stand. I only agree with the patent issue so much as it furthers research and development, but it seems anything balanced against human life is a no brainer. Maybe the US is able to put a price tag on our lives, but I think other countries should ignore patents like this on the "right to life" platform.

  • Patent on two human genes? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ektanoor ( 9949 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:50AM (#4494856) Journal
    So these guys pretend to be above God and/or Nature and pretend ownership of their Creation...

    Interesting to see this thing coming from traditionally religious Utah... Is anyone tryng to create a new religion of The Chosen who can afford the Patented Creation that offers the Misteries of Human Genes capable to prolong Patented Life and improve Patented Health just for a miserable sacrifice of a few thousands? While The Patented Infidels will be forced to avoid touching their Patented Ills so they can meet their Patented Destiny, as they don't have a penny to pay the humble sacrifice, that is the wish of being humans?

    • Interesting to see this thing coming from traditionally religious Utah...

      Alot of genetic research comes out of Utah. The LDS church keeps meticulous geneaological records which are invaluable in this kind of research, and the common racial background of most of the inhabitants only makes the testing easier. All you have to do is identify a couple of families who appear to have a genetic predisposition for a disease, then you start testing them and comparing them to find out which genes they have in common.

  • Icebergs? (Score:2, Funny)

    by twoslice ( 457793 )
    "What we're seeing now is the tip of the iceberg," she said.

    I never heard them called icebergs before... Is British Columbia really cold?

  • If they own the genes them sue them if you get ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jerry ( 6400 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:50AM (#4494859)
    cancer.

    Fair is fair. They want the profits from testing for the gene, they should pay the costs if the gene ends up causing cancer in a patient.

    What is really outrageous is that these jerks learned about the gene and how to test for it using PUBLIC tax monies, then they split into 'private' industry, file patents and start gouging - exploiting. This couldn't happen if some congressional pockets weren't being lined in the first place.

  • The bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrWa ( 144753 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:51AM (#4494866) Homepage
    Hopefully someone will get around to suing because the "patent" is killing them.
    • Hopefully someone will get around to suing because the "patent" is killing them.

      My understanding is that having either of these genes doesn't guarantee that you will or will not have breast cancer. In fact, if I remember correctly, only 5% of breast cancer cases are related to these genes. All the tests do is identify whether or not you have a genetic predisposition to getting breast cancer. A good family history should tell you the same thing.

      If I was Myriad, I would worry more about people suing because they got a negative result from their test, and they still got breast cancer.

  • Reverse engineered designs are patentable? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SloWave ( 52801 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:53AM (#4494886) Journal
    Sorry, Myriad Genetics, and any other clown who thinks they own the patent to the design of my body. Just because you reverse engineered a few portions of that design does not mean that you now control whether I can look at it or not. I think some massive civil disobedience on this whole patent issue and so called IP is in order until we get some politicions in place who can fix the present corrupt system.

  • One of the patents... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eagle7 ( 111475 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @09:55AM (#4494898) Homepage
    You can view it here [uspto.gov].

    It sounds like it patents both a method and a gene... but being that I no nothing about modern genetics, I can even being to analyze if the more important part of the patents is a novel method, or just a bunch of chemical sequences (which are listed).

  • nature of the beast... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jaredcoleman ( 616268 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:01AM (#4494934)
    This is the way capitalism works, and it does work. Without the INCENTIVE of profit from research, what company would even bother trying to make such advancements? It's funny that all of this advancement is moving at break-neck speed here in the US which is only ~220 years old, but happens to have a free market...
  • http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/breastcancer/
  • All activists do is yell, scream and stamp their feet and tell drug developers that they should give away all their medicines for free. However, what ends up happening is that the drug providers decide that it is far less complex to spend all their money on developing hair loss and anti-impotence drugs because they can sell them for whatever they want and they won't be harrased by activists to give them away for free. The problem is is that the activists and politicians just talk. The drug companies actually produce the drugs and they aren't going to spend millions on drug development unless they are going to make a profit. The actual scientists, medical equipment producers, raw materials providers, etc at those labs aren't going to work for free either. In the end, somebody is going to have to pay for drug development which is very expensive.


    The activists are unable to understand the irony of their activism.

    • While you may have a point if this was an actual treatement being asked for but the case this time is just a simple herdiary test. I'm unclear how the rights of Myriad Genetics is being infringed or stolen from by inspecting genetic material found in every one.

      So while Bald Guy Genetics may hold the patent for the gene that causes male pattern baldness do they have the right to stop someone from inspecting themselves to find out? Better break the mirrors then even if you aren't going bald. Just a simple inspection of your head of hair can test to see if you have their "patented" gene.

      Charge out the wazoo for medicine. Testing is another matter.

  • Patent (Score:5, Informative)

    by e8johan ( 605347 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:08AM (#4494978) Homepage Journal
    One can patent an invention, such as a method of detecting a disease, but one cannot patent a discorvery, such as the function of a gene or an island, planet or anything such.

    Thus is the mentioned patent a load of crap and can happily be ignored! (IMHO)

  • Imagine... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Artagel ( 114272 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:19AM (#4495041) Homepage
    Alright you are a biotech company. You are thinking of a big layout for an inheritable form of breast cancer...

    CLIENT: What can I patent if I spend $200 million dollars?

    ATTY: You can only patent your exact test. Anybody who departs from that test one iota gets to use all the fruits of your research for free.

    CLIENT: Ok, shitcan that project. Let's think of another.

    Oh, yeah, and nobody gets the test at ANY price. I wish at least 1 in 100 postings would think of the pathological scenario of the work never being done, or being done 30 years from now when the darn patent would have been expired for at least 10.

  • Researchers have been mad at Myriad for years (Score:5, Insightful)

    by back@slash ( 176564 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @10:30AM (#4495162)
    This company has already caused trouble for other researchers within the US. For those who would suggest that if there were no profit incentive this "innovation" of discovering a gene wouldn't have happened I suggest you read this [msnbc.com] MSNBC article, which contains the following two paragraphs:

    In Philadelphia, a university stopped testing 700 women a year for a genetic predisposition to breast cancer because its lab was accused of violating a biotechnology company's patents.

    "I'm quite disgusted," said Arupa Ganguly at the University of Pennsylvania, who abandoned years of breast cancer research after Myriad Genetics Inc. warned her in 1999 that she was trespassing on the company's intellectual property. "My work went down the drain."

     The fact is that this company just got to a position 1 or 2 years before University researchers would have. While there still may have been a patent put on this information by the University somehow I doubt you would have to pay extortionist fees to do anything related with those genes even if it's just further research by universities.

    Americans have already been suffering because of this insane idea that a gene that occurs within every human can become the sole property of a single for profit company. It falls within the government's responsibility to prevent this situation from happening but for that to occur you need a government that is "for the people" not for corporate profits.
  • Since this patent is about method of detection, surely we could digitize the data and then perform a simple diff on the genes? 'diff' being a few decades old unix tool is definetly too old for a patent and genes can not be patented (only their method of detection), therefore this method of detection would surely be patent free?

    If I am missing something in my utopic vision, could someone please point it out to me?

  • Profit and Care don't mix (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PSC ( 107496 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:18AM (#4495631)
    Maybe the whole idea of making profit off health is not working out as good as we'ld like to. There are lots of examples of how profit and health care contradict:

    Health tests and medical products are not produced to benefit mankind but to make profit. This causes margins and thus prices to be inflated. Reasoning: stockholder value is more important than public health.

    Doctors and hospitals are facing a similar conflict between ethics and profits: the faster they cure a patient, the less money they make. The better they serve the patient, the more they hurt themselves! This is obviously not a good thing.

    Conclusion: profit and health don't mix.

    Maybe the idea of medical companies is fundamentally flawed. Maybe the health system should be entirely funded by a combination of state and employers (since employers generally have a natural interest in their employees being healthy so they can work harder).

    Since many middle men are left out and artificially inflated margins cut, this might not even as expensive as it sounds at first sight.

    Question is, could this be implemented, or would it fail as miserably as communism?

  • Expropriation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Platinum Dragon ( 34829 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:25AM (#4495702) Journal
    What blows me away about the defenders of this patent is that they seem to believe a company should be able to recoup their costs in any way possible, including expropriating ownership of a person's genetic code without his/her knowledge or consent. Myriad effectively owns a pair of genes (and genes covered under 98 other patents) found in millions of people for the next couple of decades. You can't offer your own breast cancer genes for testing and research, because under a broken patent law, you don't own them. This is the entire reason this testing has to be stopped; Myriad apparently has the legal right to tell people whether they can even look for these genes or not. You don't control the right to use them and provide them to others as you see fit, so no dice giving your tissue for a university for cancer research.

    To reiterate: it's not as if Myriad simply patented the testing itself. It patented a gene that is clearly not a unique configuration of matter (found in part of patent law as a way for companies to patent things like molecules), since it's obviously found in millions of people - otherwise, it would be useless as part of a test. They have claimed ownership over a part of millions of people; it may "only" be a gene or two, but this company is using their authority over it to block any kind of testing or research using it. Talk about stifling innovation... it's arguable that this company has effectively stolen a person's ownership over their own genes.

    If a government claimed ownership of part of your genetic code and said you couldn't get a certain test without ponying up big money to Big Brother, I bet the people saying "but the company has to recoup their costs" would go into conniptions about a government cash-grab and Big Brother, rightfully.

    Go ahead, tell me all about the millions pharmaceuticals pour into research, and how they simply must be compensated... fine. Patent a test. Patent a device used to find the gene. Don't put people into a situation where they discover they don't have control over their own bodies anymore, can't offer their own tissue for testing and research because they don't have the right to something they were born with. Profit is not a right that overrides all other rights, and it doesn't justify, what is effectively, theft of property rights from millions of people to one entity so it can make money.

  • Interesting Wired Article (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alistair ( 31390 ) <alistair.hotldap@com> on Monday October 21, 2002 @11:27AM (#4495721)
    Wired has an article on Patents and IP today at;

    http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,55831,00 .html [wired.com]

    One of the more interesting quotes

    "Abraham Lincoln said that patents added the "fuel of interest to the fire of genius," by promoting the creation of new and useful inventions.

    He didn't say that patent laws, or by extension intellectual property laws in general, were created to be cash cows solely for the gain of those with sufficient resources to play the system and intimidate any challengers into inaction."
  • Which elected official or organization should I contact to rant about this. This is the most terrifying use of a patent I have ever heard of.

  • Why don't they start a research project (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mocm ( 141920 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @12:25PM (#4496296)
    that investigates the occurance of said genes in the
    BC population. It could be funded by the health services.
    Patents cannot prevent research use.

    They could also provide the patients with an opportunity to do the tests themselves. Although that is less feasible.
    Patents cannot restrict private use.

  • Background book: Curing Cancer (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kyont ( 145761 ) on Monday October 21, 2002 @04:02PM (#4498527)
    For those wildly speculating or just wondering about the research races, patent conundrums, ethical dilemmas and personalities involved, the book Curing Cancer : Solving One of the Greatest Medical Mysteries of Our Time [amazon.com], by Michael Waldholz, covers the race for BRCA-1 (the first gene really linked to hereditary breast cancer) up to about 1995. The founders of Myriad are an important part of the story, and it's an interesting read.

    I have been friends with key founding personnel of Myriad for over 30 years now, and I believe they are sincerely devoted to improving humankind's lot. Although the ethical issues raised are very sticky, there would not have been a good gene test to be fighting over so soon if it were not for their research. But Myriad is now a public company, and unfortunately the almighty buck (a.k.a. stockholder value) governs their decisions much more than in the early, research-oriented days of the company. I think the failing is not with Myriad's medical ethics, but with the insanely high quarterly returns that are demanded of public companies, regardless of any Bad Things that may result for society (and/or Canada ;-) ).

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX was not designed to stop you from doing stupid things, because that would also stop you from doing clever things. -- Doug Gwyn

Close