Comments on: DNA Poll: Patenting Genes

By: Hsien

Hsien — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:58:23 +0000

Here’s one I saw recently that got me to wondering:

Oxford Biomedica Secures Rights To Endostatin And Angiostatin Genes For Cancer From Children’s Hospital Boston

By: Hsien

Hsien — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 07:56:46 +0000

Thanks for the informative comment, Andro! I see press releases that say so-and-so has renewed their licensing agreement with who-and-whatever on the use of such-and-such genes. The legal procedures always perplex me. Definitely need to do some more reading up on this topic!

By: Andro Hsu

Andro Hsu — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:15:47 +0000

I’m glad there’s a prohibition against correlations, which Crichton spoke out against in his op-ed. Correlations are essentially a thought process on the part of the scientist, physician, or genetic counselor. The Supreme Court, unfortunately, has effectively upheld patents on correlations because of procedural reasons. (A good history on the case is here.

Would the prohibition on “function” apply only to biological/molecular/cellular function, or does it include the technological uses of a gene sequence? As I recall, there are two types of patents that can be filed on genes: composition (i.e. sequence) and novel use. Much of the scramble in the late 90s was to file patents on what was essentially composition of a gene, while simultaneously defining use so broadly and speculatively as to have a basis (though weak) to sue someone else later on who thought of a more specific novel use.

I imagine that the wording in the legislation only forbids patents on composition–which would allow companies to patent the use of a sequence to be used in a diagnostic test. But if the correlations cannot be patented, then the sequence cannot really be patented as a novel use for a diagnostic.

By: The Genetic Genealogist - » Should Genes be Patentable?

The Genetic Genealogist - » Should Genes be Patentable? — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:49:42 +0000

[...] at EyeonDNA has a great post about patenting genes, including a poll and a discussion in the [...]

By: Blaine Bettinger

Blaine Bettinger — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:43:43 +0000

Don’t worry Hsien, law school flies right by! Actually, it doesn’t, but it sure is interesting.

David - I agree completely. Another problem is that “very different end result” is so subjective. Maybe it should be a percentage - the ‘new’ gene has to be 25% or 50% different from the gene in nature. Of course, a gene can be 50% different, but if it’s all silent substitutions, there won’t be any change in function at all. What a mess!

By: Hsien

Hsien — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:14:33 +0000

This whole arena is ripe for loopholes and interpretation. Glad I’m not a lawyer. Or maybe that’s my next challenge. Ha Ha Ha. Not.

By: Hsien

Hsien — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 09:12:51 +0000

Some of the data that came out of the Hopkins seminar showed that patents support innovation and doesn’t raise the price of end products which makes patents seem like a real good thing. I think as it gets easier to sequence and find genes, the less we should allow them to be patented simply because there’s not so much investment. The whole law rigmarole confuses the heck out of me. You should start a blog about the law and genetics! You’re totally qualified.

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:27:16 +0000

Genes created in the laboratory is possibly a different matter, unless of course the prior art is very, very similar. I.e. swapping a single base for another somewhere along a 20000-base gene would not, in my opinion constitute an entirely novel invention, unless it has such a very different end result in terms of the function of the protein it expresses.

By: Blaine Bettinger

Blaine Bettinger — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 23:12:31 +0000

I don’t think people should be allowed to patent genes that appear in nature - that just seems counterintuitive to the purpose of patenting. But what about genes created by researchers? Should they be allowed to protect their creation?