Genetic Patents

Evil Phil

I am conserned with companies tinkering with genetic codes be they ours or cats'. But I'm more concerned with the patenting of genes mostly because I don't understand how it works and I'm suspicous of the pharmacutical companies anyway. You know about these things Bob, how do I patent a gene and what's to gain from it?

I have looked on the web but it only caused confusion.

_CreeD_

I remember this coming up last year when the EU were bringing in new genetic-patent laws. One of the examples was a a research company (I think working for Mars...the bar not the planet...) wanted to patent certain Cocoa plant genes. The scope of the law meant that they could then actually charge royalties to countries already producing natural cocoa that happened to be similar to their engineered samples.
Sorry I can't remember much real details, I just remember it was going to totally screw over a lot of 1/3 world countries (Who were bound to follow the EU directive or lose moneteary aid).

Basically I think a company should have the rights to any distinct modofications that have no parallel in natural evolution at the time. However these rights should be null and void against any similarly, but naturally developed gene types (at any time).

Eg. The cat allergy thing, no-one should be sued because 50 years and x generations later they have managed to naturally breed a cat with the same characteristics.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Evil Phil:
I'm more concerned with the patenting of genes mostly because I don't understand how it works and I'm suspicous of the pharmacutical companies anyway. </font>

My understanding is that these companies are basically patenting the sequenced model of specific genes without even understanding what they may do yet. Why? Because if someone comes up with something useful from that gene at a later stage, then the pharm company who patented it will be able to claim royalties.

Of course, Bob should have a better (i.e. more correct) view on this....being in and of the industry to some degree

jc

MiCr0

just curious
bob what do u do?
is any one going to hte lecture in trinity tonite re:genes?

Hobbes

Did you know you can't own (c) for your own DNA.

bonkey

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus:
The interesting thing is that it is extremely likely that these patents aren't as valid as other types of patents. Chances are, they will be scrapped in the near future.

<snip>

</font>

I would sincerely hope so. Patenting is a very weird issue, as it is not truly international (you can have something patented in one country, but not in another). However, as with many issues, the world will probably follow the American's lead on this.

Have a read of http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41035,00.html for a short article outlining the last decision made by the US patent office regarding gene patenting. Its still ridiculous, adn I can see it causing untold numbers of court cases once serious applications of this relatively new science start to profilerate.

Actually, there's a whole topic in patents and how farcical they have become. However, it doesnt belong here....maybe in Humanities

jc

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">However, it doesnt belong here....maybe in Humanities

jc
</font>

Duly noted, and moved- definately a Humanities question- very little scientific discussion can be accrued from a legal point of government policy. I would stress that the nature of science makes it incredibly unlikely that any court challenges could be mounted in the field of animal genetics with any hope of success(as things now stand). As and when that changes, we should start getting very worried indeed. The freedom of science to acquire understanding with an open moral question of use is perhaps the most seductive, (and potentially dangerous) thing about it.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=Caveat Emptor=

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I'm a medical practicioner Micr0- and I have a great interest pharmacology, genetics and sports medicine(the last of those is my field).

The interesting thing is that it is extremely likely that these patents aren't as valid as other types of patents. Chances are, they will be scrapped in the near future. Since a valid chain of scientific discovery cannot be patented unless there is specific commercial use- it is unlikely gene patents will be viable for very long. The proteins associated with the new genes though...that is what has all scientists and medics worried.

Not about human gene proteins- those probably will never be patented or legally claimed, and that's the way it should be. Gene modification for industrial purposes though- there is a very strong case that these should be patented. This is because of the cut-throat competition that will probably arise, particularly in agriculture, when gene modification reaches a certain stage.

I'm fine with the patent of a protein as long as the modification serves a strictly industrial purpose. Stiff regulation is the order of the day here- the government needs to babysit industrial genetics for a few more years yet. This is what is happening in the US, and in Britain, though popular resisitance to it's introduction in Britain is holding back progress a tad here. The pharmaceutical industry is what people first think of in terms of abuse, but that particular industry is already so stiffly regulated and policed, that I find myself more worried about industrial genetics- particularly certain plant modifications with respect to commodities.

Those industries are barely regulated at all- they are usually very low on most government priority lists except in times of crisis. It took F&M disease before anyone decided that farmers and the countryside were important parts of a rural economy- at least for the public to realize such a thing. Governments need to quickly step in and take control of these areas of industry- especially now that genetic modification is no longer myth, but reality.

I'll post more information about the legal aspects of biological patents later in the week (when I'm likely to have more time )

Bob the Unlucky Octopus
=E Pluribus Unum=

MiCr0

wrt geneticly engineered anythings (people, animals), it is very much against the ethos of most genetists i know (which is many) to do anything like this. there are guidelines in place in the uk and the states governing what you can and can't research, regardless of whether you work for a large corp or in a university. and in countrys where genetic engineering on people isn't banned there are UN regualtions in place to stop this too....