You Don't "Own" Your Own Genes

[Zoe Castillo]

If any of you needed further proof that the copyright /patent industry is fucking insane then take a look at this [http://weill.cornell.edu/news/releases/wcmc/wcmc_2013/03_25_13b.shtml ] (cornell.edu).

Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty

Now as funny as it would be to see people with cancer trying to sue a company which "owns" the gene that controls their specific disease . this is beyond absurd .

also before some of you go completely apeshit over this I?d like to point out that as far as I understand ( and feel free to correct me on this ) no one actually ?owns? the gene?s they just own their usage . and you would only be infringing on their patents If you happen to come up with something that uses those genes . but even so owning a combination of DNA and the procedures for making things with them is way more power then i want corporations to have .

Perhaps this is unavoidable as bioengineering becomes something anyone can do in their kitchen, with DNA licensing becoming what code is now . Though this brigs up the even more unpleasant thought of people creating pathogens in their basement .[small]honestly it feels like we are living in the future from syndicate[/small]


study: http://genomemedicine.com/content/5/3/27

 

[Orange12345]

Reminds me of Heinrietta Lacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

long story short, a doctor removed some of Lacks cancer cells and found that they were unique in that they could be kept alive for a very long time, which was one of the things holding back cancer research. She died in hospital, and doctors started to farm her cells to meet an increasing demand from researchers around the world. Here's the kicker not Lacks herself or her family had any idea this was happening they found out 20 years after her death when some researchers called her family up to ask if they could get samples to compare from other family members.

Now not to say that this was "wrong" the cells have been a godsend to not only cancer research but many other diseases, BUT at the very least they should have informed the family that this was happening maybe even thrown them some cash

 

[Heronblade]

Yeah, it is a weird loophole of patent law that companies and universities have been quietly exploiting for decades.

What really gets me is that most of the patent holders don't actually do a damn thing with it, they are apparently just waiting for someone else to come by with something profitable concerning the genes in question, and latch on as a parasite.

Yet another in a long list of reasons for us to completely rewrite our laws concerning this junk.

 

[Zoe Castillo]

Reminds me of Heinrietta Lacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

long story short, a doctor removed some of Lacks cancer cells and found that they were unique in that they could be kept alive for a very long time, which was one of the things holding back cancer research. She died in hospital, and doctors started to farm her cells to meet an increasing demand from researchers around the world. Here's the kicker not Lacks herself or her family had any idea this was happening they found out 20 years after her death when some researchers called her family up to ask if they could get samples to compare from other family members.

Now not to say that this was "wrong" the cells have been a godsend to not only cancer research but many other diseases, BUT at the very least they should have informed the family that this was happening maybe even thrown them some cash

you may appreciate this

from 2:17 - 3:00

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

also before some of you go completely apeshit over this I?d like to point out that as far as I understand ( and feel free to correct me on this ) no one actually ?owns? the gene?s they just own their usage . and you would only be infringing on their patents If you happen to come up with something that uses those genes . but even so owning a combination of DNA and the procedures for making things with them is way more power then i want corporations to have .

Actually, no, that's not right at all. What they have patented is a method/process to discover and analyse specific genes... it's just that the broken US system allows for patent owners to start acting as if they own the genes by insisting that their patent is the only legal way to analyse the genes in question and that any other methods/processes that do the same thing are infringing.

US Biotech firms have tried that bullshit here in Oz a few times over genetic screening tests, even though the tests in question used completely different processes. They US firms have been told to go fuck themselves every time.

 

[Severin]

True I guess, though with the recent advances in Genetics, scientists can do pretty much whatever they want for their research.Plus I think it's somewhat reasonable that a company who invested on research of that sort will want to get a patent on in.I mean an engineer does patent his own inventions doesn't he? Either way, that sort of thing doesn't realy change anything for the public, just for the scientists themselves.

 

[Dark Knifer]

also before some of you go completely apeshit over this I?d like to point out that as far as I understand ( and feel free to correct me on this ) no one actually ?owns? the gene?s they just own their usage . and you would only be infringing on their patents If you happen to come up with something that uses those genes . but even so owning a combination of DNA and the procedures for making things with them is way more power then i want corporations to have .

Actually, no, that's not right at all. What they have patented is a method/process to discover and analyse specific genes... it's just that the broken US system allows for patent owners to start acting as if they own the genes by insisting that their patent is the only legal way to analyse the genes in question and that any other methods/processes that do the same thing are infringing.

US Biotech firms have tried that bullshit here in Oz a few times over genetic screening tests, even though the tests in question used completely different processes. They US firms have been told to go fuck themselves every time.

Nice to know that we're willing to stand our ground in the face of these bullshit patents and what not +1 patriotism.

OT: Once again evidence of these stupid laws. I hate how companies claim things like they own them when they never purchased them from a person and demand money for the privilege of using them because they have lawyers. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Keoul]

True I guess, though with the recent advances in Genetics, scientists can do pretty much whatever they want for their research.Plus I think it's somewhat reasonable that a company who invested on research of that sort will want to get a patent on in.I mean an engineer does patent his own inventions doesn't he? Either way, that sort of thing doesn't realy change anything for the public, just for the scientists themselves.

I disagree.
From what I've read they've basically patented human genes as a product such as coca-cola. It's like patenting oxygen in the atmosphere, everyone uses it and everyone needs it involuntarily. To be able to patent such a thing is ridiculous.

Furthermore a patent does not equal instant cash, they could have decided not to patent it. Now that they have they'll be the ONLY company able to research (legally) and produce cures and such for genetic diseases.

Now granted with your engineer he is deserving of the funds from his own inventions but he INVENTED them, he didn't discover something crucial to human evolution and decide to patent it so only he could research it. He actually created something new and patented it to protect his idea from being stolen. That is the reason for the patent system, not for big ass corporations to earn more money by patenting things they didn't invent so that they're the only ones legally allowed to research it.

As for the public, you may not realize but instead of say 10 pharmaceutical companies researching cancer, the patent of cancer genes could reduce to 1. That one company has patented that one cell and doing anything to it would most likely be viewed as an infringement of copyright. Unless they pay an exorbitant fee to the patent company, noone else will be able to research it.

 

[Quaxar]

True I guess, though with the recent advances in Genetics, scientists can do pretty much whatever they want for their research.Plus I think it's somewhat reasonable that a company who invested on research of that sort will want to get a patent on in.I mean an engineer does patent his own inventions doesn't he? Either way, that sort of thing doesn't realy change anything for the public, just for the scientists themselves.

I disagree.
From what I've read they've basically patented human genes as a product such as coca-cola. It's like patenting oxygen in the atmosphere, everyone uses it and everyone needs it involuntarily. To be able to patent such a thing is ridiculous.

Furthermore a patent does not equal instant cash, they could have decided not to patent it. Now that they have they'll be the ONLY company able to research (legally) and produce cures and such for genetic diseases.

It has already been said, the patents are mainly analyzing methods and such, not the genes themselves since they aren't a "product" but a "discovery". Like how you can't patent a new star but you can patent the new method you used to discover it and make money off of the new method.
Similarly, you can't patent oxygen, as it's not a product but a naturally occuring gas, but you can invent a new method of detecting it such as <url=http://www.google.com/patents/US5670378>US5670378.

Now what really may be questionable is the patenting of "synthetic" organisms, like how beer companies might have patents on specially developed yeast strains or the <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncomouse>OncoMouse, a special mouse breed for cancer research that had a patent by Harvard until 2005.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

Not all of us are subjected to the US patent system Patenting people is still illegal everywhere else.

 

[rasputin0009]

Ya, these patents are pretty insane. And from what I understand, it's that companies are sitting on these patents and not letting anybody else research the genes they patented. It's severely reducing all bioresearch like cancer and whatnot. It's a terrible business practice that I think should be stopped.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

This reminds me of the story of the Human Genome Project. This project was amongst universities and big educational facilities to map the entire human genome. Then a guy claimed (Craig something.. forgot his name) that his method would work much faster and that he would patent his discovery - essentially making the entire human genome his commercial thing.
The universities developed a new method to beat him, and although the accuracy of their project suffered as a result, their effort kept the human genome in the public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project#Public_versus_private_approaches

 

[Doclector]

So...when does this pay off for them?

No, seriously, when?

When someone invents plasmids?

 

[nexus]

Monsanto "owns" seeds, also.

I just facepalm when I hear about the "state" or "corporations" owning natural things. Give them a millimeter and they'll seize the circumference of the planet. Emotionless, morally bankrupt, overly-medicated creeps. They only understand ego & greed.

What ever the intent of patents was to begin with, it is nothing but an exploitative tyranny right now. People and organizations seize "ideas" by the tens of thousands and do nothing with them. They literally seize technology in the hopes that someone in the future will try to develop it.. then they take them to court, and try to stop the technology from happening. Fuck. That.

 

[Quaxar]

Monsanto "owns" seeds, also.

I just facepalm when I hear about the "state" or "corporations" owning natural things. Give them a millimeter and they'll seize the circumference of the planet. Emotionless, morally bankrupt, overly-medicated creeps. They only understand ego & greed.

What ever the intent of patents was to begin with, it is nothing but an exploitative tyranny right now. People and organizations seize "ideas" by the tens of thousands and do nothing with them. They literally seize technology in the hopes that someone in the future will try to develop it.. then they take them to court, and try to stop the technology from happening. Fuck. That.

Monsanto owns seeds it created, the ones modified to be insect-proof, high-yielding and resistant to the pesticides they sell too. Once you go Monsanto it's harder to get away again when they raise prices for next year's seeds but no one's stopping anyone from quitting and going back to other seeds or farming methods.

They don't pick a seed off the ground and take it to the patent office, they put $2.6 millions per day into R&D of new, improved seed varieties that ultimately end up greatly increasing the farmer's profits. Like a <url=http://www.thehindubusinessline.in/bline/2005/04/07/stories/2005040701600700.htm>nigh 120% increase in profits and plus 64% yield for Indian cotton farmers using Monsanto's Bollgard cotton over traditional ones.

I get it Monsanto is apparently hated by pretty much everyone, so much that even my Firefox addon has their website flagged as "bad" but really, they aren't monsters either.

So...when does this pay off for them?

No, seriously, when?

When someone invents plasmids?

Ever done a cancer screening? Paternity test? Risk assessment for congenital diseases?
Somewhere along the way there's probably been at least one patent usage to be paid off.

 

[Thaluikhain]

So...when does this pay off for them?

No, seriously, when?

When someone invents plasmids?

So they can sue people for copyright infringement for having DNA they don't have a licence for

 

[FoolKiller]

Well, media is allowed to be used for fair use including education. I think that research should fall under a similar fair use concept and so should these patents.

 

[Arakasi]

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with copyright law in the first place. The problem is that I can't quite put my finger on what it is, or how to fix it. But I do know it results in odd cases such as this.

 

[Veylon]

I think there is something fundamentally wrong with copyright law in the first place. The problem is that I can't quite put my finger on what it is, or how to fix it. But I do know it results in odd cases such as this.

This is patent law, not copyright law (though perhaps the Monsanto stuff qualifies). The results are not so much odd, as broken. Patents are meant to protect new processes and ideas so that the inventor doesn't get their ideas stolen. But what we've got are patents that are neither process nor idea. It would make sense to patent a particular therapy or use for a particular gene, but it's absurd that the gene itself can effectively be patented.