Board index » arthritis-lyme » off topic, sort of blanket patenting of genes
georgia
 Registered User |
off topic, sort of blanket patenting of genes
2005-12-16 09:05:46 AM
"........Until the American applications, scientists had restricted themselves to patenting individual genes or microbiological processes for which they had already isolated a commercial use. This new blanket patenting of an entire gene sequence covers any future possible use of the data for medical purposes. ......." ".....patents on genes are liking drilling rights on oil wells- Giantrucco.....source: Money magazine.." some quotes on patents: "...WHY PATENT? Patents were historically developed to insure that inventors could share in the financial returns and benefits deriving from the use of their inventions. With the development of the modern corporation, patent rights are almost always assigned to the company rather than an individual. This gives the patent holder a form of monopoly control for 20 years from the filing of the patent, and creates a legal means of limiting competition. Private investors generally regard such monopolies as favorable to their interests, so in many industries patents aid in the development of new products. "THE FIRST PATENTS ON LIFE: For over two hundred years living organisms have been excluded from patent laws; life forms were considered a "product of nature" and not a human invention. The non-patentable status of living organisms changed with the 1980 landmark Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty. The court decided in a narrow 5-4 decision that a strain of bacteria that had been modified by the insertion of new genes was patentable because it was not naturally occurring. The foreign genes gave the bacteria the ability to break down hydrocarbons, and its "inventors" hoped it might be useful for cleaning up oil spills. "Industrial societies have always permitted ownership of individual animals. However, until recently no corporation, institution or individual could own the rights to an entire strain or species of organism, nor could they patent components of organisms such as cells, genes or proteins. All of these are part of our global living heritage. The granting of patents on microorganisms and increased pressure from the biotechnology industries began a "slippery slope" progression towards the patenting of more complex life forms. PATENTS ON ANIMAL LIFE: In 1988, a Harvard University biologist was granted a patent for a mouse that had been engineered for increased susceptibility to cancer. The "Harvard Oncomouse" became the first animal to be considered an invention by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It established a precedent within patent procedures for patenting genetically modified animals. Although this research was intended to benefit human health, the question remains about the ethics of patenting complex living beings. The U.S. Congress has never explicitly addressed the question of whether animal genes and cells can be corporate property. PATENTS ON HUMAN LIFE: A most alarming aspect of patenting life is the patenting of human genes, cell lines and tissues. Corporate patent attorneys have lobbied the Patent office that these "products of nature" are patentable once they have been isolated to produce a form not found outside of a laboratory. For example, in 1976 a leukemia patient named John Moore had surgery at the University of California to remove his cancerous spleen. The University was later granted a patent for a cell line called "Mo," removed from the spleen, which could be used for producing valuable proteins. The long term commercial value of the cell line was estimated at over one billion dollars. Mr. Moore demanded the return of the cells and control over his body parts, but the California Supreme Court decided that he was not entitled to any rights to his own cells after they had been removed from his body...." "...Moreover, changes in patent law are fueling aggressive efforts to MONOPOLIZE novel gene combinations and THE LIVING THINGS IN WHICH THEY ARE INTRODUCED. The landmark 1980 Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty established patentability for any living thing "under the sun made by man." Over the past fifteen years, the Patent Office has taken this decision to cover cells, microbes, plants, animals -- all living things except, presumably, ourselves. But who knows? Lawyer George Annas argues that there's nothing to prevent cloning enthusiasts from pursuing patents for genetically modified human embryos. "The once-unthinkable idea that a microbe, a plant variety or an animal breed could be owned has become accepted practice under the patent law of many industrialized countries. During the recent GATT negotiations, the United States pressed hard for similar practices in the Third World. All genes are now seen as keys to new products. Not only the gene-rich ecosystems of Third World countries but also the cells and genes of indigenous peoples are now envisioned as lucrative targets. In the rush to stake claims on cell-lines and DNA samples, companies and scientists are committing what the Rural Advancement Fund International calls "acts of biopiracy," violating the rights of the people and countries from which the samples are taken. RAFI has launched a campaign to take the issue to the International Court of Justice at the Hague....." #164# Genetically altered humans. Applying genetic engineering to humans faces major technical hurdles. "Humans are not simply large mice," a recent scientific review states, and the introduction of novel genes to correct for genetic diseases or cancer is no simple mechanical matter. The human body tends to reject anything foreign, like a virus carrying a corrective gene into a diseased cell. Nevertheless, corporations are aggressively promoting human gene therapy even though no genetic cures are yet in sight. Researchers are moving quickly to clinical trials, 62 percent of which are funded by the private sector. The inserted gene, the protein it encodes and the drugs that make the gene function are all seen as likely commercial prospects. "Three for the price of one," was the way an editor of an industry newsletter recently acclaimed the approach........" ".........Vaccines might sound like a viable form of protection, but in practice they present huge problems. There are about thirty known biological weapons agents, and genetic engineering may expand that number almost indefinitely. The long latency period between vaccination and the body's immune response and the logistical problems of manufacturing and deploying vaccines pose further obstacles. Undaunted by the prospect of multiple injections for U.S. soldiers in war zones and the risks such procedures carry [see Laura Flanders, "Mal de Guerre," March 7, 1994], the Pentagon aimed vaccines against more than forty different microbes...." The Guardian Thursday May 7, 1998 An American company has applied to patent one of the bacteria that causes meningitis. It could lead to royalties being paid on every treatment if a new vaccine against the illness is found. The application is one of three filed with the European Patent Office by Human Genome Sciences (HGS), who are seeking to be the first to own the whole genetic sequence of bacteria. If the application is granted, as seems likely, it will open the door for commercial companies to patent any lifeform from which they think they can make money - including human gene sequences. The prospect has appalled scientists in the field, who believe discoveries should be shared for the common good and that the scramble for patents for commercial gain will damage research. There were 2,660 cases in England and Wales last year of the most dangerous meningococcal form of meningitis, of which 243 were fatal. Many of the victims of the largest outbreak for 50 years were young children. The illness strikes quickly and is difficult to diagnose. Julia Warren of the Meningitis Research Foundation said: "The idea that someone should try to patent bacteria and then claim a royalty on our research if we find a vaccine had never occurred to me. I am stunned. It could make treating children prohibitively expensive. All our money goes on research: we cannot afford royalties as well. Will these companies accept responsibility if people die because we could not afford to vaccinate them?" The Wellcome Trust, which encourages the sharing of gene research, also fears the consequences. Celia Caulcott said: "There is evidence that commercial companies are doing research and then not publishing it while they look for ways to exploit the knowledge they have gained. Patenting the knowledge and so having the power to stop people developing vaccines and other preventive medicines for killer diseases would be an appalling result." Until the American applications, scientists had restricted themselves to patenting individual genes or microbiological processes for which they had already isolated a commercial use. This new blanket patenting of an entire gene sequence covers any future possible use of the data for medical purposes. Two of the three applications are for troublesome bacteria where active research is under way to find treatments. The first is Haemphilus inflenzae, which causes meningitis and is one of the few strains for which an effective vaccine exists. However, most research is directed towards finding a vaccine for meningococcal meningitis, for which as yet no patent has been applied but is certain to follow if this application succeeds. Another patent has been applied for Mycoplasma genitalium which is usually sexually transmitted and causes urethritus, a painful inflammation. The Department of Health is investigating a screening programme for this illness. The third bacteria causes no human disease, but if a gene is extracted for any medical application royalties would be due. The applications, each the thickness of a telephone directory, have been filed at the British Library in advance of a debate on patenting in the European parliament on Tuesday. This is expected to agree a new EU directive which backs the idea that all lifeforms can be patented for profit. Until now the idea that living organisms can be patented has not been thought to be acceptable on legal grounds because a patent implies both an invention and an industrial application. A gene sequence is merely a discovery and was not previously thought possible to patent one. The applications are based on the work of Dr Craig Venter, who pioneered large-scale gene sequencing. He originally tried to claim patents on small fragments of genes but has since said he is opposed to the idea. However, his erstwhile partner, William Haseltine, who runs HGS, has applied for 200 patents on individual human genes, and says it is legitimate business. "We were the first to discover these genome sequences and to describe practical medical benefits. We have broken no new ground and acted within established patent rules." He accepted that scientists had never before attempted to patent a living organism. Wendy Watson, of the Hereditary Breast Cancer Helpline, said: "Genes are becoming a global currency and patents mean that currency will end up in the hands of a select few. We may end up with monopolies we cannot overrule. This will harm patients." ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. ** - |