* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download How Can You Patent Genes?
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy of the human retina wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
History of genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
How Can You Patent Genes? Margaret Everett PSU What are patents? Exclusive rights to an invention fixed period of time What can be patented? “any process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter” • [US patent statute] an invention that is new, useful and non- obvious gene patents usually for process (such as a test) or composition of matter (specific gene sequence) “Anything under the sun that is made by man” US Supreme Court, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 1980 products of man v. products of nature genetically engineered bacterium could be patented Social and Cultural Implications can life forms be owned? Would the decision lead to commodification of higher life forms? Should all forms of life be held ‘sacred’? Harvard’s Oncomouse 1984 patent application, granted in 1988 genetically engineered mouse with high susceptibility to cancer patent was for • “any transgenic mammal, excluding human beings, containing in all its cells an activated oncogene that had been introduced into it - or an ancestor - at an embryonic stage” • product vs. process John Moore’s spleen 1988 California Supreme Court case Does a patient retain ownership of body parts after removal from the body? Can cell lines be patented? Who should profit? John Moore’s spleen treated for hairy cell leukemia at UCLA by Dr. Golde spleen removed and preserved by Dr. Golde for research spleen cells producing unique antibodies were patented and sold as MO cell line John Moore’s spleen Moore discovers patent and sues for ‘breach of fiduciary duty’ and ‘conversion’ Can body parts be ‘stolen’? Does a patient have a right to profit from their own body? Court’s decision Moore’s right to consent was violated Moore does not retain ownership in his spleen cells “socially important” medical research would be harmed cell line belongs to scientists who created it in the lab John Moore’s reaction “How does it feel to be patented? To learn, all of a sudden, I was just a piece of material?…There was a sense of betrayal…I mean, they owned a part of me that I could never recover.” (newspaper interview) “like a rape” Chief Justice Panelli “Lymphokines, unlike a name or a face, have the same molecular structure in every human being and the same, important functions in every human being’s immune system…it is no more unique to Moore than the number of vertebrae in the spine or the chemical formula of hemoglobin.” Effect of Moore v. Regents reinforced gene patents patients have rights to informed consent, but cannot claim property interest in their bodies property and patent rights go to those who “mix their labor” with biological material Gene Patents gene sequences are like any other chemical compound by isolating them and replicating them in the lab, they exist in a form not found in nature isolation and purification = inventive step Benefits of patents reward scientific advances encourage research and investment, development of new drugs and therapies bring new discoveries into the public domain Opponents of gene patents privatization of new discoveries inhibits research and new treatments • “tragedy of the anticommons” (Heller and Eisenberg) patents granted on sequences that have no known utility or function Opponents gene patents hurt patient care American College of Medical Genetics: • “Genes and their mutations are naturally occurring substances that should not be patented.” limit access to testing services and threaten quality of testing Computer sequencing patents are for information rather than the compounds themselves “discoveries” or “inventions” Response to Opponents William Haseltine, CEO of Human Genome Sciences: • “The patent office does not reward perspiration…They reward priority. They don’t care if someone spent 20 years to find an invention or 20 minutes.” Revised Patent Office Policies 2001 higher standard of ‘utility’: “specific, substantial, and credible” patient groups such as National Breast Cancer Coalition and National Organization for Rare Disorders continue to claim that patents harm research What’s anthropology got to do with it? Is the body something we own, or something we are? Do gene patents change our view of life, of being human? Why do some express a sentimental attachment to their body parts, even once removed? • Organ transplant research, study of death rituals across cultures