|
|
| | |
| |
 |
| Summary: Should genes be patented? |
|
|
| |
Author:Joe Devanny ( United Kingdom )
Joe Devanny reads Politics at Cambridge University. He was President of the Cambridge Union Society [and has reached the semi-finals of the World Universities' Debating Championships].
Created: Monday, October 02, 2000
Last Modified: Tuesday, April 14, 2009
|
| |
Due to the pioneering research of the Human Genome Project, an international collaboration of scientists, as well as the contribution of private, ‘genomics’ corporations, we now have the ability to isolate our genes. This has sparked much debate in the media, prompting hopes that if we can identify, say, the genes for various cancers then it is only a matter of time before this new knowledge leads to a tangible improvement in treatments of this disease. Whilst such new treatments are many decades away, genetic screening is a closer reality, with screening for key breast cancer genes already common. The legal problems arise when companies attempt to cash in on medical research, patent individual genes, and profit from further work in that area. Questions raised are both of a practical, legal nature – What should constitute a patent? How long should a patent last? – as well as an equally difficult, moral one – Should we patent the ‘building blocks of life’? Should medicine be an area for profit at all? |
 |
|
|
| The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it. The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? |
|
Of course it should be different; genes are the very basis for human life and to claim that anyone has the right to be regarded as the ‘owner’ of a particular gene, which we all share in our bodies, shows a venal disregard for humanity. If companies want to patent treatments which target specific genes, then that’s okay, but not the genes themselves. The principle can be expressed by analogy: you are allowed to protect inventions such as breathing apparatus, but not the oxygen it uses. |
 |
|
|
| If companies are not allowed to patent the products of their research, then other companies can exploit their findings to profit themselves. If there are no safe-guards to prevent this, then companies will virtually cease to fund their Research and Development (R&D) departments, and the research into this potentially revolutionary area will end. Banning patents would take away the lucrative incentive to invest in this area, which is what drives on medical research. |
|
Most research is not done by private companies. The Human Genome Project has contributed by far the greater amount of knowledge in this area. In some cases it seems that private companies have speedily patented genes, which public scientists claim to have discovered first. The percentage of ‘Biotechnology’ firms’ budgets spent on R&D is minimal. Indeed, banning patenting actually protects the public investment into genome research which could become wasted if private companies stifle attempts to research into genes, on which they hold a patent. |
|
|
|
| It is only right that an inventor should be able to protect his invention. Moreover, other companies will pay the necessary dues to the patent holder, because even after that the field of new medical treatments is lucrative. There will be many treatments available, as well as affordable screening processes. Many palliative medicines for Aids have been developed through the channels of private, medical research and these channels are driven by the incentive of profit. |
|
This is simply not supported by the facts; the Myriad company, which holds patents on BRCA 1 & 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes, which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. The companies are putting private profit before public good, and in such serious areas as cancer and Aids, the very notion of doctors having their hands tied purely because of private profiteers seems abhorrent. Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can, the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people. |
|
|
|
| Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should consult them. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy. On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement. |
|
In those twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Academic medical scientists are scared into discontinuing research lest there institution be hit by a costly law-suit from a patent holder. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after immense public protest, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries. |
|
|
|
| The same option of patenting is open to public institutions. They can protect their research in exactly the same way. The purported differences between public institutions and biotech companies are unfair assertions. The companies are as scrupulous in safety and standards and operate with the same integrity as other researchers; it is only the existence of a profit incentive, which is proven to be the most practical means of prompting medical advances, which attracts ill-conceived, unrealistic and Utopian criticism. |
|
The Human Genome Project makes all its research freely and publicly available. The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, that there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience. There is, moreover, evidence that corners are being cut in the safety of experiments. In one Harvard trial of gene therapy, the deaths of three of the six patients led to the trial’s suspension. More worrying is the recent finding in America that out of 691 cases of ‘serious, adverse effects’ in trials, 652 were not reported to the National Institute of Health. This should be taken as compelling evidence that the biotech industry needs to be scrutinised more thoroughly, and that we should approach genomics and its potential benefits with a more cautious, prudent and respectful attitude. |
|
|
|
| | This House Would Allow the Patenting of Genes
This House Believes that Genes Are Inventions
|
|
|
|
