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 ..."
Wait wait, what the hell? (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically a dumbfounded, "Wh...whaaaaat?"
Facts? (Score:5, Interesting)
If I discover a new element, can I patent it? Can you imagine if someone patented, say, Gold?
Re:Correction (Score:5, Interesting)
There is more than 1 genes for HGH ??? (Score:2, Interesting)
Some cut'n'pastes from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ [nih.gov]
Official Symbol: GH1 and Name: growth hormone 1 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4261, GH, GH-N, GHN, hGH-N
Other Designations: pituitary growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2688
Official Symbol: GH2 and Name: growth hormone 2 [Homo sapiens]
Other Aliases: HGNC:4262, GH-V, GHL, GHV, hGH-V
Other Designations: placenta-specific growth hormone; placental-specific growth hormone
Chromosome: 17; Location: 17q24.2
GeneID: 2689
genes or alleles? (Score:4, Interesting)
What does it really mean? (Score:2, Interesting)
As a scientist, am I supposed to pay somebody to use it? I don't think so.
Though the article isn't clear about it, I think this only applies to people who intend to use certain genes for bioremediative therapy of some sort - for profit. This does not seem to affect the scores of scientists researching the patented genes. So research won't slow down, but the marketplace for any beneficial applications might. (But with the lag of the FDA anyway, what else is new?)
Should I hold my breath? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Correction (Score:3, Interesting)
Intellectual property is in its actual essence a corporate taxation and welfare system without borders. It's rather mindboggling to see elected politicians handing out rights to (foreign) entities to basically tax buisnesses and citizens in the various countries, and to do it without demanding anything in return.
Re:It's not just patenting gene sequences (Score:3, Interesting)
Monsanto created a seed (let's say corn) with special characteristics in it, therefore the seed is theirs to use. This would be parallel to the isolated gene and a derived use for it.
There is natural cross pollenation that occured. This is parallel to two people having sex. One person may have the gene that has been isolated and used in a patented process. If one of the two people had the parallel gene+derived use and they could have passed it on during reproduction. Monsanto didn't patent the seed for plain corn, they patented corn seed that was created using their process, a process that gave it a special characteristic. This special characteristic was passed during cross pollenation.
Now, the newly cross polinated corn produces seed. Just as the reproducing couple created a child. This child may have inherited some characteristics of the parent who used the patented gene. This is also true of the newly created corn seed. It may have characteristics of the Monsanto seed that cross pollenated it.
Here's where it gets tricky. No one would sue the the parents because the child had these special characteristics in it, but they would sue the parent if:
The farmer whose crops were cross pollenated harvested the seed and replanted it. The farmer may or may not have known the new seed he harvested contained special propertes, but if it did - Monsanto felt he should have to pay for the seed or purchase new seed without the engineered trait in it. This parallels the parents selling the their trait laden DNA for profit, which probably never would have gained that trait without the processes influence.
The parellel breaks down at the point where sex can be controlled and cross pollenation, for the most part, cannot, but who needs to bicker about specifics when you're a big multinational corporation? Who's sueing a friggin farmer.
The REAL reason Monsanto would sue that farmer would be so that the Monsanto sponsored farmer could by his land, with Monsanto's help. In exchange the farmer who aquired the new land would have to sign a contract stating they would purchase Monsanto seed exclusively for all their crops - but didn't set a price. Then Monsanto jacks the cost to that farmer just enough to fleece him indefinitely, but not enough to put him out of business.
PROFIT!
BTW, don't drink milk - Monsanto went and fucked that up too. [google.com]
"Gene Patent" example (Score:4, Interesting)
It really looks like most of the claims are about the sequence, not any particular utility for it! Of course, it does say what the proteins that the sequence codes for is and does.
Re:The root problem is For Profit health care (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree, information about the human genome should be free to be used by everyone without cost (the patent system wasn't supposed to help the patent holder make a larger profit, but just enough to cover the cost of development of the patented technology), I fail to see how a monopoly system is more efficent than a more decentralized system? There are historical cases we can compare for a market profit model vs. monopoly profit model on the effect of health care. For example, if the monopoly profit model is the best, we would expect the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe during the cold war to have better health care, higher life expectency, etc., than in Western Europe, Canada, and the United States (drug development in the U.S., Western Europe, and Canada were not really a true market system, the governments of all spent billions on research, but they were far more free-market than the Soviet system). But I am afraid you will find that health care in the West was better than in the East.
It is going to take more than just showing us that the market isn't producing some drugs that people need (because clearly Cuba and North Korea aren't producing those drugs either, which they should be if a government controlled monopoly on drug development was the be-all end-all solution to drug development)... why don't you show us how your profit model for drug development is better for consumers that the current profit model?
Show us why one big heirarchical drug development system is better than a decentralized network of drug development.
Re:The root problem is For Profit health care (Score:1, Interesting)
"The Market" gives arise, by darwinian evolution, to entities that are the most efficient at extracting profit.
This has nothing to do with peoples health.
By all means, make the buggers compete with each other, but not for profits ; make them compete for number of people healed. Or whatever.
Re:Correction (Score:2, Interesting)
a patent can be kept "valid" for decades in this way.
try a google search for "+patent +evergreen" for more info.