Congratulations. For the time
being, you are not owned by anyone. Are you surprised that you were before? If
so, you aren’t the only one. You may be horrified to find out that until the recent
Supreme Court decision of ACLU v. Myriad
Genetics, a whopping 20 percent of the genetic material that is inside each
one of our cells was patented by a host of pharmaceutical companies, labs,
and individuals.
All of
this started in the 1980’s with the birth of DNA sequencing, bioengineering,
and genetic manipulation. Until then, humans had found it difficult to
manipulate or record the exact order and placement of the nucleotides that make
up every organisms genetic material. As this became possible due to, at the
time, earthshattering advances in science, companies began to seek ownership of
this information and rights to all research concerning it. At that point, as is
often the case with new technology, people did not grasp the gravity of the
discovery or clearly see its potential for the future. The Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty, came along and
the justices ruled that though full and exclusive ownership of a natural gene
was illegal, ownership of all processes concerning a natural gene in addition
to any “man-made” gene was legal. With the relatively small amount of genes
that were sequenced, not to mention lack of practical uses for them once they
were isolated, the issue simply melted away.
This
all changed in the next 30 years. During this time, the human genome project
had been begun and completed and scientist now knew how to manipulate, isolate,
and find the function of most any gene in humans or other organisms. What had
started as a slow trickle of patents concerning genetics had erupted into a
deluge of patents all vying for the right to exclusively study a section of
DNA. Not only was it animal and plant genes that were on the table, but human
ones. There is great promise in companies that isolate and study these genes.
For instance, a gene that contributes to a person developing diabetes may be
able to be silenced if researched enough. However, most people disagree with
this, arguing that exclusive rights to a gene bar all other institutions from
researching as well. This is in addition to arguments against ownership to a
part of the human, saying it makes no more ethical sense than being able to patent
an organ like the heart or lungs.
The Supreme
Court upheld this sentiment recently in the case ACLU v. Myriad Genetics. The company Myriad Genetics had applied
for a patent of two genes linked to breast cancer. This would give them
exclusive rights to research and develop anything having to do with these
genetic markers. Of course, this is mainly for financial gain. They had
recently discovered that through testing with these genes, an extraordinarily accurate
gene tests could predict the likelihood that a person would develop breast
cancer. This meant that they could inflate prices of the test and make
significantly more money. Though it sounds cutthroat, it is standard practice
in business to do this to defend discoveries. The difference, the justices
said, was that these were unaltered genes being copyrighted, not a process
concerning them. They argued that they were made naturally meaning that they
were no ones to exclusively own. With this, the copyrights of many companies
were deemed void, opening research opportunities to anyone involved.
For more information on this issue (or a better explanation that I have given), visit the link below and listen to the NPR discussion of the topic. There is also an embedded video outlining the basics of the subject.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125361332
Sources:
http://www.dailytech.com/Federal+Court+Rules+it+is+Illegal+to+Patent+Unaltered+Human+Genes/article18033.htm
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/151686-do-you-own-your-own-genes-or-can-big-pharma-patent-them
No comments:
Post a Comment