aw society family house would allow patenting genes

In the twenty years of a patent’s duration, any prospective research is carried out in fear of recriminations and law-suits from the patent-holder. Laboratories offering patented genetic tests for research studies have been asked to “cease and desist” unless they refer materials to or get a license from the patent holder 1. Where one company has the right of exploitation, they possess a monopoly and inevitably will be able to charge what they like. It is only after countries threatened or actually invoked provisions of the WTO Treaty, for example, that companies offered to decrease the price of their Aids medicines for African countries 2. Those provisions would have permitted the governments to grant compulsory licenses.Further on, gene-patent holders can often control the useof ‘their’ gene; if they have the claim for the test, they can prevent a doctor from testing a patient’s blood for a specific genetic mutation and can stop anyone from doing research to improve a genetic test or to develop a gene therapy based on that gene 3.So any further research is in the mercy of the patent owner. Even if information is public, if it is not possible to use it and build upon it without permission. It is therefore possible for the patent holder simply to horde patents and prevents any research using that patent to the detriment of science, medicine and the patients who could be benefiting.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. BBC News, “Brazil to break AIDS drug patent”,  , accessed 15/9/2011.  3. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011

Patenting enables knowledge sharing  Patents are typically granted for twenty years only. After this period the monopoly ends. All companies ask is that for a limited time they are able to benefit from their investments, and that in that period if another company wishes to pursue a project in their area then they should have to give their permission for the use of the patent. Patenting does not mean withholding information in secrecy.  On the contrary, patents actively encourage openness in science, because if you were not able to disclose your findings without fear of exploitation, then you would keep your findings secret. This would be to the detriment of medical advancement.  For example the Human Genome Sciences’ patented their discovery of the CCR5 receptor gene, which was then discovered by other scientists at the National Institutes of Health, that the small number of people missing the receptor appear to be immune to HIV 1. This could be done because Human Genome Sciences has a policy that "we do not use our patents to prevent anyone in academics or the nonprofit world from using these materials for whatever they want, so long as it is not commercial.2"  Patenting makes sure that the information is registered and shared. The other option, whereby companies do not patent the information and keep it as a “trade secret”, hurts everybody much more and slows down the rate of scientific progress.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO  2. Chartrand, Sabra, "Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS" The New York Times, 6 March 2000,

Genes are intellectual property thus patentable  The patenting office stipulates that a successful patent applicant must have found something in nature, isolated it, and found a way to make something useful with it.The genome research of companies satisfies these criteria, so why should it be any different? The genome companies have invested resources to create intellectual property (patents), which refers to “creations of the mind.” Under US law includes intellectual property inventions, literary and artistic works, symbols, names, images, designs, and trade secrets. The law states, that any person who “invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent.” In biomedicine the patentable inventions include materials, such as new drugs or new cell lines, and methods for deriving or growing them, such as extraction or cloning techniques.1  1. Merz J., Mildred K., What are gene patents and Why are people worried about them ?, Community Genetics 2005

Of course genes should be treated different from any product or other invention; genes are the very basis for human life and to claim that anyone has the right to be regarded as the ‘owner’ of a particular gene, which we all share in our bodies, shows a venal disregard for humanity. If companies want to patent treatments which target specific genes, then that’s okay, but not the genes themselves.The University of Colorado explains: “Inventions include new processes, products, apparatus, compositions of matter, living organisms, and/or improvements to existing technology in those categories can be patented. Abstract ideas, principles, and phenomena of nature cannot be patented.”1  1. Patents FAQ Patents FAQ, University of Colorado,

We are happy to put a price on our ideas and knowledge, which are as much building blocks of life as our genes. Each individual already sells his ideas and has a price tag so patenting makes no further devaluation than that which is already there.Even if ownership of another person’s parts is immoral, morality never had a lot to do with gene patenting.Patent agencies allow such immoral things as poisons, explosives, extremely dangerous chemical substances, devices used in nuclear power stations, agro-chemicals, pesticides and many other things which can threaten human life or damage the environment to be patented. This is despite the existence of the public order and morality bar in almost all European countries.1So why make a difference with gene patenting, which does not harm, but may actually benefit a great amount of people.  1. Annabelle Lever , Is It Ethical To Patent Human Genes?, UCL 2008,

Firstly, it is not self-evident, that people have a right to use and possess something, such as medicine that they did not create.So why should people have the right to use a product that someone else discovered through the power of their own cognitive abilities. Actually demands to not patent and just research for the greater good are contradictory to the government taking care of all their people. The best way for the government to encourage medical research that provides these benefits is through patents. Patenting of genes is therefore a right that is based on the right to ownership of your own thoughts and should therefore be granted to the companies / individuals. There is no consistent legal basis for deciding that genes are not patent-eligible without deciding that many other ‘natural products’ are also ineligible.

Patenting inhibits research and therapeutics  The prevailing belief is that this is an area of such great importance and potential benefit to mankind, as such there should be no, self-interested impediment to genome research. The only barriers should be those of conscience.  The Human Genome Project is one of the government funded projects that makes all its research freely and publicly available. They are not driven by profit and offer information on their discoveries for free enabling others to build upon their findings.  The problem with patents is that companies claim ownership without regard towards moral issues. It is purely in the pursuit of their profits that they decide not to allow others to build on their findings and make the process of discovering treatments far more difficult. An example of this is the Myriad company which, whilst holding patents on BRCA 1 &amp; 2, genes connected with breast cancer, prevented the University of Pennsylvania from using a test for these genes which was substantially cheaper than the company’s own screening procedure. 1  Instead of protecting their research investment, companies should have a moral duty to facilitate in any way they can to the development of cheap, available treatments and screenings for diseases which are so dangerous to so many people.  1. Spektor, Michelle, "Genes Are Still Patentable, Federal Appeals Court Rules", Science Progress, 17 August 2011,

A liability regime not patents.  There are alternatives to the kind of blanket patenting that stifles innovation and drives up prices . The most obvious is to have no patents at all for genes which would result in a free for all but might have the result the proposition argues it would, that without any kind of pay back for the research no one will do the research in the first place.  However there are alternatives that prevent many of the problems of patents while still bringing in many of the benefits . This would be to have some kind of rights for the discover. Unlike patents there would be no right to refuse or provide conditions for access to the discovery. This would be a use now pay later system. Anyone could research using the discovery or seek to commercialize it but would have to pay a fee which would depend upon what the application was1. Palombi has proposed the creation of ‘Genetic Sequence Rights’ “the GSR would be administered using… the present ‘international’ patent system so as to minimize establishment costs and to facilitate its adoption. A GSR would be granted to the first person to file and disclose a genetic sequence defining genetic material of any origin and explaining its function and utility… The GSR would become part of an international electronic database which would be freely accessible by any person.  Upon registration the GSR holder would have the right to a GSR use fee (GSR fee). The GSR fee would vary depending on the nature of the use. For publicly funded institutions such as universities, experimental use would not attract a GSR fee, but for commercial entities, the GSR fee would apply commensurately with the nature of the use2.” This would therefore create a much fairer system that both encourages research for commercial purposes and for academic purposes.  1. Dutfield G., DNA patenting: implications for public health research, WHO   2. Palombi, Luigi, “The Genetic Sequence Right: A Sui Generis Alternative to the Patenting of Biological Materials”, Patenting Lives Conference, 1-2 December 2005, p.18.  ,

Immoral to own a human life  Patenting genes and DNA fragments is immoral because of their significance for human life and welfare. It is immoral to own building blocks of the human life. Commercialization of human genes degrades value of human life. Once we give people the possibility to put an ownership tag on genes (basics of life), there is people who value human life merely based on monetary value. Bidding for the best gene, highest price and making the basics of life the same as buying a car. Andy Miah in his essay on Ethical Issues in Genetics argues: "Evidence of such disaffection has appeared most recently from the emergence of Ron's Angels, a company set up for the auctioning of female eggs and male sperm to infertile couples seeking 'exceptional' children. Whilst numerous companies of this kind now exist, Ron's Angels is interesting not simply for having arranged a standard and reasonable price for such genes; far from it. Rather, as indicated above, eggs and sperm are awarded to the highest bidder."1 Thus making the perception of human life what people believe is "fair to pay" and creating a race to figure out the cheapest ways of buying parts of the human body. 1 10) Miah, A., Patenting Human DNA. In Almond, B. &amp; Parker, M. (2003) Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us?

Patenting drives up the cost of therapies and renders them unaffordable to the poor  The government and its laws should take care of all their people. Because the state is a construct built by all the people, who all pay taxes to support it, laws should also be based to benefit the greatest amount of people possible.In the case of the Myriad company, which holds, together with the University of Utah Research Foundation, rights over tests for ovarian cancer, it prevented cheaper tests being offered to the public. As a result, Myriad is the only company that can market a test for the mutations, and it charges as much as $3,000 . That is a price that for many is inaccessible. Patients’ state: “There is no other, cheaper test that you could go get in another laboratory, because they have the exclusive patent,” she explained, adding that Myriad also controls the efficacy of the test—second opinions are only available for certain surgeries 1.Because patenting harms the accessibility of diagnostics and testing, it should not be allowed.  1. Pratt P.A., Court Rules That DNA Is Information, Not Intellectual Property, published March 30th 2010,  , accessed 07/20/2011

Patenting in general is creating more possibilities for patients than if there was no patenting and less competition for development. Even if treatments and diagnostics for some diseases are expensive, they are at least there and are beginning to benefit the people that need them most. If the government is that concerned for the well-being of its poor patients, the issue of private and public dis-allocations is far more troubling than patents.  However, if the government does believe that such a treatment in necessary for the greater good of the country, which happens in very few cases, there still are mechanisms to loosen patent rights. The Hastings Center explains that governments and other organizations can encourage research on needed therapies, such as a malaria vaccine, by setting up prizes for innovation related to them or by promising to purchase the therapies once they are developed 1. Other measures rely on voluntary action. Patented drugs can be sold at little or no mark-up in poor countries. Scientists and their employers can decide not to patent an invention that might prove useful to other researchers, or they might patent it but license it strategically to maximize its impact on future research and its availability to people in need. For example, when the scientist Salk believed he has developed a vaccination that should be basic health care, he decided not to patent his polio vaccine, which saved millions 2.Also, companies like GlaxoSmithKline have initiatives for having drugs made more available and affordable to poor countries 3. Governments and NGOs can also contribute.  Experts in research analysis (Professors Walsh, Cohen, and Charlene Cho) concluded that patents do not have a “substantial” impact upon basic biomedical research and that “...none of a random sample of academics reported stopping a research project due to another’s patent on a research input, and only about 1% of the random sample of academics reported experiencing a delay or modification in their research due to patents 4.”Most of the newly developed gene therapies / genes are not that essential to be for free for everyone and further on for those few, that are, there are different methods of abuse prevention.  1. Cook-Deegan R., Gene patents, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/20/2011  2. Josephine Johnston, Intellectual Property in Biomedicine, The Hastings Center,  , accessed 07/21/2011  3. IB Times, “GSK lead initiative to help poorer countries”,  accessed 07/20/2011  4. CRS Report for Congress, Gene Patents: A Brief Overview of Intellectual Property Issues, 2006,  , accessed 07/21/2011