Are DNA patents doomed?
Our emotional attachment to our genes may be part of why the patentability of the breast and ovarian cancer susceptibility genesis still bouncing around the courts.
Guest Blog Scientific American: 3 April 2012
Who owns our personal microbes?
What if a researcher found bacteria in your nasal passage that was used to make their company a multi-milion dollar anti-biotic? Do you get a cut of the profit?
Sunday New York Times: 3 December 2011
TechNyou
Personally, (in the context of the whole story rather than the intro para above) I think it comes down to the individual versus society.
Government supports gene patent reform
The Labor Government has endorsed reform of the Australian patent system, especially where it impacts health and medical research and gene patents.
Australian Life Scientist: 24 November 2011
To patent or not. The EU’s embryonic stem cell ruling
Blog/opinion post exploring some of the potential implications of the EU court ruling on the patentability of embryonic stem cells.
American University Washington College of Law: 29 October 2011
And another opinion from the UK
Cambridge Network 27 October 2011
European court bans stem cell patents – what about Australia?
Will the European Court decision affect Australia’s legal tussle over invention versus discovery?
The Conversation: Fady Aoun, 19 October 2011
Is patenting crops really about feeding the hungry? A response
Last week Michael Gilbert from the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics wrote a story for The Conversation about the role of patents in plant breeding. It is a contentious area, the whole patenting of genes thing, and I for one am uncomfortable with the concept of being able to patent a gene. Understandably, there was a response to Michael Gilbert’s article – link below.
The Conversation 29 September 2011 Luigi Palombi
TechNyou
Michael Gilbert had a convincing argument although unlike Luigi Palombi I wasn’t confused by article nor did I find it incomprehensible, but that doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the use of patents applied in this context. I can see how used judiciously they might be useful to society, but I remain to be convinced about their overall worth in the context of this discussion. But I am the first to admit that I am outside my area of expertise here. Patent law, law full stop, is not something I stay up late at night reading about.
A few more points
I am unsure about Luigi’s following comment: ” First, Gilbert says this rice is “patented technology”, which begs a question about what the patentable part of it is since rice as such exists in nature.“ It is not the rice itself that is being patented, but the technology that is in it – ie the gene construct or technology used to generate that novel trait. That patentable “bit” is then bred/introduced into other relevant cultivars.
Also I am unsure what loss of biodiversity has to do with patents and GM crops. As mentioned it is the gene construct or technology that creates the novel trait that is patented not the actual crop. That trait is transferred into the relevant cultivars of the numerous seed breeding companies. Sure monoculture and loss of biodiversity are a problem, but they are irrelevant to the GM argument.
Final point. Luigi suggests that if people aren’t getting enough iron and zinc in their diets there are other grains such as amaranth, which contains 14 times the amount of iron, and wheat which contains 12 times the amount of zinc, than white rice. ie Just make sure people eat a more balanced diet. Yes this is true and I am sure Michael Gilbert acknowledges this as I know nearly everyone else I know working in this field does including Alex Johnson who leads the team that created the iron-rich rice. But it is not as simple as telling people to eat a balanced diet because it is better for you, otherwise nutrient deficiencies would have ceased to be a problem long ago. Not everyone has access to or can afford a balanced diet, brown rice doesn’t store very well…and a host of other reasons prevent access to that proposed balanced diet. And none of these people are suggesting that their iron-rice rice (or other nutritionally-enhanced crop) is going to solve the problem either. It is simply one other tool that can be used to help the situation – along with trying to find ways of ensuring they get a varied diet, fortification of appropriate foods, improving education, eliminating poverty….and so on.
A gene: invention or discovery
The gene patent war is hotting up again with the US courts recently deeming the patent owned by Myriad Genetics for two breast cancer genes are valid – again
What does all this mean? What are the implications for Australia? I for one, am not even going to try to explain, but The Conversation has found three people with different perspectives to give their thoughts.
Luigi Palombi
David John Brennan
Phillip Soos
Previous TechNyou gene patent stories
TnY – Without patents people will die
Breast cancer gene patent reinstated
Gene patents scrapped last year on the grounds that they were based on natural molecules were last week reinstated on the grounds that the molecules are, after all, unnatural.
New Scientist: 2 August 2011
Funding sought for DNA-embedded genetic surveillance machine
US military research group (DARPA) wants to fund research into technologies that could be built into the genome of microorganisms and keep track of any changes made to the organism’s genes
Discover magazine – 80 beats
TechNyou
The big sticking point here is that nobody has a clue how to achieve this, but if they do it will have implication in the area of gene patent protection and possibly synthetic biology.
Without gene patents people will die.
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Without gene patents people will die. This is one perspective of a few that are popping up recently. The first below from Anna Lavelle, CEO of Ausbiotech; the second a series of articles in the latest Australian Economic Review that explores the debate whether universities should patent their research and the implications of patents on research (as opposed to development of a commercial product).
Without gene patents people will die
Dr Anna Lavelle is the CEO of AusBiotech, Australia’s biotechnology industry organization. Her article in Online Opinion is in response to the ‘Patent Amendment (Human Genes and Biological Materials) Bill 2010′ that was introduced to the Senate late last year. From her headline Lavelle does not support the bill stating, “If the legislative amendment is progressed in its current form, researchers, industry and the legal fraternity have grave concerns that it would have far-reaching and unintended consequences for patient access to novel therapies, tests, vaccines, and even medical devices.”
Privatising science: should Universities patent research results?
Can the commercialisation of research help or hinder future research activity?
That is the question posed in the March edition of Australian Economic Review (sbscription required) that explore the debate on how to define the boundaries and balance the delicate tension of public and private knowledge, some of which involves patenting of genes.
University of Melbourne Newsroom has posted a summary of the articles but they include the following:
Paul H. Jensen and Elizabeth Webster, Effects of gene patents on scientific enquiry
Julian Clark, Do patents and Intellectual Property Hinder Biomedical Research