1/5 of All Human Genes Have Been Patented 441
mopslik writes "A story on National Geographic News cites a study claiming that 20% of all human genes 'have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.' While universities hold 28% of all gene-related patents, 63% belong to private firms, with a whopping 2000 patented genes (approximately 67%, or 50% total) belonging to a single firm." From the article: "You can find dozens of ways to heat a room besides the Franklin stove, but there's only one gene to make human growth hormone ... If one institution owns all the rights, it may work well to introduce a new product, but it may also block other uses, including research ..."
Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Whoops. I realized after hitting "Submit" that I had mixed the "more than 4000 genes" and "20% of 24000 genes" (=4800) in my percentages. Using 4800 as the estimated number of gene-related patents, more accurate numbers are:
Universities: 28% of all gene-related patents
4800*0.28=1344 patents held
Private firms: 63% of all gene-related patents
4800*0.63=3024 patents held
2000/3024 = 66% of all firm-held patents held by Incyte
2000/4800 = 41.6% of all gene-related patents held by Incyte (not 50% as stated)
Just circumvent the patent (Score:1, Informative)
This will work until the GIAA (Genetics Industry Association of America) successfully lobbies for the GMPA (Genetic Millenium Patent Act).
Turn the tables... (Score:1, Informative)
-1 Flamebait (Score:4, Informative)
"While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes
It's the application of the gene that's patented, not the gene itself.
fortune magazine (Score:3, Informative)
The Law of Unintended Consequences [fortune.com]
Re:Wait wait, what the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
So CGDAAADAACG that you may find in nature, you get CGAAAAACG, since the D enzyme are considered garbage in this example.
I asked him if they really knew that the D enzyme was really garbage, and he said that they did not, but they were fairly confident it didnt do anything.
Re:I may just be me, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait wait, what the hell? (Score:2, Informative)
...shows what I know I suppose.
It's not just patenting gene sequences (Score:5, Informative)
So it's not just the DNA sequence that they're patenting; it's the DNA sequence plus a description of how to use it. Not just your body using it, but a technological invention outside your body.
It still seems like an awful lot of store to give away. The idea is that isolating and understanding the functions of genes is expensive, so to encourage people to do it they're giving away rights to use the results of that research (i.e. more than just props for being the first to describe it.)
But no, you can't sue somebody for having children; the use of the gene in its natural state (i.e. you) isn't patentable. Producing the same chemical as a medicine is There's a long history of getting patents on stuff you find in nature and putting a use to it; they cite a patent on adrenaline. You didn't lose right right to get excited, but you couldn't bottle up the output of your adrenal gland without coming up against their patent.
I'm not defending it; I'm just explaining it.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So.... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Gene Patent (Score:4, Informative)
Blasphemy!! (Score:3, Informative)
have a saucy Ramendan [fark.com]
tm
Re:It's not just patenting gene sequences (Score:3, Informative)
In the end they decided that Schmeiser didn't have to pay for the genes but he did have to destroy the contaminated plants. He tried to countersue them for trespass for contaminating his crop, and lost (and it would have been small-claims anyway.)
I don't think that the issue is considered completely settled, either in Canada or in the US. In his case he's destroyed the seed and bought new seed stock, and it seems to me that it would at least be fair to force Monsanto to pay for that (not to mention the damage caused by the loss of his custom-selected seed stock). So this case is over, but there's more to your question that isn't answered yet.
D = A, G, or T (Score:4, Informative)
It's represented as such because it's the next letter after C.
Similarly, B is C, G, or T; H is A, C, or T; and V is A, C, or G.
Re:The root problem is For Profit health care (Score:2, Informative)
You could at least give credit where its due.
Re:Correction (Score:3, Informative)
Now, we 'detect genes' by a few methods: heuristics that look for sequence characteristics (ATG starts, open reading frames, GC content, etc), and use the sequences of other organisms to look for higher than normal conservation between genomes to indicate that these regions are mutating more slowly than chance (under selection.)
I work at the Broad institute, and we just had our yearly retreat this year. One of the amusing things that's come out recently: we've got about 2K-3K 'genes' annotated for the human genome that probably aren't there, according to new data and detection.
Not many genes are found by positionally cloning anymore. It's difficult, time consuming, and used to be 'the task' that PhD students would get stuck doing.
Besides all this, you can't patent genes, just methods on/using them. And there's lots of room for me to have a drug that works better on you because you have a mutation on a gene, and you can get a detection method for a disease, etc.
I'd guess this is most likely complete fear mongering, and if it was a "CS Technical" discussion, people would recognise it as such.
Re:Searching for Prior Art? (Score:1, Informative)
"bear arms"
You'll notice the subtle difference...