Sunday, March 04, 2007

Advocacy and Genetics: Who Owns Your Genes--and to What End?

On February 13, Michael Crichton published an op ed piece in the New York Times on gene patenting. Crichton’s piece argued that genes should not be patented:

Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly.

Crichton’s piece has been widely read, discussed and blogged about, including a thoughtful discussion of whether gene patenting is consistent with other patenting in scientific discovery or unique by Derek Lowe in the blog Corante.

The patenting of isolated genes as chemical entities is tricky. Yes, they are chemicals, and when they're isolated and purified like that they really are in a different state than found in nature. But their size is so far removed from many of the other things patented as substances that I can't help but wonder if a principle is being pushed too far. (The obvious other example here is the patenting of isolated proteins, which of course is also well established, for better or worse).

The patent law argument rests on a 1980 Supreme Court Decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, and is presented briefly along with a summary of arguments for and against gene patenting on the Human Genome Project Information web site.

Prior to 1980, life forms were considered a part of nature and were not patentable. Diamond v. Chakrabarty changed this with the 5 to 4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that genetically engineered (modified) bacteria were patentable because they did not occur naturally in nature. In this case, Chakrabarty had modified a bacteria to create an oil-dissolving bioengineered microbe.
In an unpublished letter to the New York Times (Feburary 14, 2007), Peter Arno,who teaches Health Economics in the Sarah Lawrence College Health Advocacy Program, and his colleague Michael Davis, wrote this response to Crichton’s piece.

Michael Crichton is right on target when he argues that gene patents inhibit medical innovation. However, this argument can be taken even further. In terms of new drug development, there is scant evidence that patents stimulate biomedical research or innovation. What they certainly do is protect the monopoly profits of multinational drug firms. Rather than stimulating creative drug development, patents promote the sale of high-priced drugs and massive expenditures on marketing pharmaceuticals for conditions prevalent in wealthy countries for which treatments already exist (better known as “me-too” drugs). What makes matters worse is that the Patent Office rejects an appallingly small number of applications. A good patent lawyer, it is said, can get a patent on a ham sandwich. When a patent system is so out of control, it is not surprising that innovation suffers.

[Note: A useful review of “the negative consequence of gene patents” can be found in Greenpeace’s report on The True Cost of Gene Patents: The Economic and Social Consequences of Patenting Genes and Living Organisms which summarizes these consequences as follows:

  • considerable increase in the burden on patients and health insurance funds
  • protracted litigation that may also severely impede research and development
  • a blockade of research and development by whole bundles of patents to be observed for individual technical innovations
  • hindrance to medical institutions, particularly in the field of diagnosis
  • obstruction of current proteomics research by hastily granted and too extensive gene patents
  • impediment of research and development, particularly in the field of infectious diseases
  • unacceptable dependence of patients with hereditary diseases on individual companies
  • danger to world food supply owing to the exorbitant cost and monopolization of seeds
  • new systematic dependence of medium-sized plant breeders
  • considerable financial risks and direct dependence of farmers
  • stepping up of international concentration process in the seed industry
  • new dependence of food industry on agrochemistry]

The issue of gene patenting has become central to the work of many patient advocacy organizations seeking to not only promote research related to particular genetic disorders, but to ensure that the voice of the patient—and the family—is part of the research planning process. These groups understand that in today’s research “marketplace,” the fact that very real people—often children—are the source of the tissue samples that enable researchers to find gene mutations, should mean that they are able to continue to play a role in the use of that research for testing or treatment. In another New York Times piece earlier this year (“Someone (other than you) may own your genes”), Denise Caruso, executive director of the Hybrid Vigor Institute, noted this concern and raised the example of families affected by the Canavan disease:

The degree of control that life patents grant their owners is of growing concern to scientists, human rights and patient advocates and ethicists. More than 20 percent of human genes have already been patented, and most of those patents are owned by corporations.

. . . . In the case of the Canavan disease patent, for example, a family afflicted by this rare genetic disorder initiated an effort to find the gene mutation responsible for the disease. They raised money, collected DNA samples and attracted researchers to the cause.

After a researcher found the gene in the late 1990s, he and his employer, Miami Children’s Hospital, patented it and began charging royalties on a genetic test to screen for the disease — despite the fact that they would never have found the gene without the efforts and the DNA samples of the afflicted.

Patient groups filed suit in 2000, contending misappropriation of trade secrets by using their children’s DNA without consent to obtain a patent. It took until 2003 for the parties to reach a confidential settlement; it allows certain laboratories to continue collecting royalties but lets institutions, doctors and scientists use the patented gene sequences without paying.

At the end of March, the two certificate programs at Sarah Lawrence, Applied Research Ethics and Public Health Genetics/Genomics, will come together to discuss with speakers and panelists ethical issues related to genetics and research. The Canavan Foundation situation and subsequent efforts by patient advocacy groups to control tissue banking and gene patenting, will be a focus of some of this discussion. Yet in the background now is advocacy of another sort: advocacy focused on pending Congressional legislation aimed at protecting the broad public interest. The “Genomic Research and Accessibility Act,” introduced by Representative Xavier Becerra, Democrat of California, and Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. Republican of Florida, would “prohibit the patenting of human genetic material.”

Clearly discussion and dialogue between advocates in different arenas around these gene patenting issues is only beginning, but its importance is unquestionable.


Blogger Spider63 said...

The goal of gene patenting is to eventually create a corporate brand of animals and people, and to sell certain abilities that are connected to genes. If you want to avoid cancer, pay a certain fee and your genes will be modified. It is how the pharmacies and medical establishment will make billions in the coming future.

11:09 PM  
Anonymous Geoffrey W. Rutledge, MD, PhD said...

Hi, I think your blog is terrific, and I would like to feature you on Wellsphere ( Would you drop me an email?
Good health!
Geoffrey W. Rutledge, MD, PhD

1:27 AM  
Anonymous CareNet said...

Nice Article, I saw some good health advocates here,

6:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

10:39 PM  
Blogger Michal said...

Nice blog !
Kamagra Oral Jelly Some patients struggle to swallow medicine in tablet form A new popular form of Kamagra is now available in Oral Jelly sachets The.

5:14 PM  
Anonymous Meditours said...

Meditours is committed to providing medical treatments of the highest medical standards today by world renowned surgeons performing peer reviewed procedures with high rates of success.

Count on Meditours to connect you with the most highly qualified and experienced doctors in their field. Our team of medical staff ensure that all aspects of your health are in check pre and post procedure. We perform treatments on Parkisons, Dystonia. We have experts in Plastic Surgery and Orthopaedic treatments. We also offer packages that include Ayurveda spa-like and restorative treatments

For further details go to:

6:44 AM  
Anonymous What to invest in said...

This is definitely a topic thats close to me so Im happy that you wrote about it. Im also happy that you did the subject some justice. Not only do you know a great deal about it, you know how to present in a way that people will want to read more. Im so happy to know someone like you exists on the web.

What to invest in

8:59 AM  
Anonymous inspired silver said...

Nice blog,i am looking forward to read your next great article...

3:58 AM  
Anonymous maton guitars said...

You have given the very nice and useful information

4:01 AM  
Anonymous said...


I hope this finds you well. I represent Healthline, a medical website dedicated to providing trustworthy health news and advice.

We recently launched a new medical funding product that allows patients to raise funds to help with their medical expenses. You can see the online resource here:

I’m writing to ask that you would include this as a resource on your page:

Why you should include this on your page:

-Provide a resource to those in need of funding for their medical care

-The tool is operated by Healthline Networks, a reputable medical and trustworthy medical website who’s content is regularly featured in Yahoo Health, Huffington Post, and New York Times

Please let me know if this would be possible. Thank you again for your time reviewing.

Warm regards,
Maggie Danhakl • Assistant Marketing Manager
p: 415-281-3124 f: 415-281-3199
Healthline • The Power of Intelligent Health
660 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107

11:55 AM  
Anonymous said...

Hi, recently launched a free interactive "Human Body Maps" tool your readers may be interested in. You can find it at:

It would be much appreciated if you could include this tool on and / or share with friends and followers. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you in advance.

Warm Regards,

Maggie Danhakl- Assistant Marketing Manager
p: 415-281-3124 f: 415-281-3199

Healthline Networks, Inc. • Connect to Better Health
660 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107

2:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home