The Accidental Smallholder Forum
Community => Coffee Lounge => Topic started by: deepinthewoods on December 01, 2012, 08:59:52 pm
-
if you like :wave:
should a buisness be allowed to apply for / be granted, a patent on a human gene?
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-human-genes-be-patented-supreme-court-to-decide (http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/can-human-genes-be-patented-supreme-court-to-decide)
-
Without even looking at that - ergh, no.
In fact, I think any genes should not be patentable. Only stuff that's been created by somebody should be treated like "property" - anything that exists naturally should not.
(I hope that makes sense - it does to me, but then I'm nearing the end of a bottle of wine, and I'm just not used to these masses of alcohol any more... ;D )
-
No
-
In fact, I think any genes should not be patentable. Only stuff that's been created by somebody should be treated like "property" - anything that exists naturally should not.
what if youve 'created' those genes by genetically modifying the original human ones?
ie,created something that would not exist in nature without your efforts?
-
What reason would there be for genetically modifying human (or animal) genes?
-
thats what 'GM' is.
gm corn for example, is maize that has had a gene from a bacteria added, to produce am inherent pesticide .
-
The idea that someone might genetically modify humans and then 'own' that modification is pretty scary.
I can see solving genetic disorders, but then to patent and profit from it? No. It needs to stay tightly controlled by an international body, and remain not-for-profit.
-
An intermational body ? Such as the eu ?, the who ?, the un ? , the fda ? All totally corrupt run by theives and murderers .
The basics of life free and not for profit , like water maybe ? , er maybe not , basic medication ? , maybe not . It won't ever happen jk . They will do this and charge us for it . Monsanto are already patenting every plant they can , we will be next .
-
I wonder what perfect human they will use as the original basis, they are mad mind you if there is money to be made, no that cant be, or maybe, >:( holly s**t no no no never !.
-
I am a Gemini and not sure if that has an influence but I am in 2 minds, one do not meddle with what was created and 2 as a want to be scientist, my brother and daughter are!! and I only helped out in upper Schools but I would if I could and had the brain, anyway, as a want to be Scientist I would want to patent any gene I had created!!! the issue is indeed 2 sided!!
-
Yes and no.
It takes a lot of money to develop a new gene and all governments are short of money. But the agrochemical and drug companies lack the ethical standards to be allowed free reign on the patents. I'm very happy with what Rothhamsted does for all of us but deeply distrustful of anything Monsanto does for itself.
-
what if youve 'created' those genes by genetically modifying the original human ones?
ie,created something that would not exist in nature without your efforts?
Ah - but I would not allow any human genes to be meddled with in the first place, anyway...
I don't even think any plant varieties, for example, that have been "created" by old fashioned breeding, should be patentable. And certainly no plants from the wild should be patented like some companies try to do - companies that suddenly "discover" the commercial value of a wild plant that's been used for medicinal purposes by local people for centuries...
In actual fact, I think this entire patenting business is wrong. So somebody has a good idea - great. Let's spread it around so that a maximum number of people have the benefit. (I suppose we have to turn to genuine communism to get everybody to adopt altruism big style! Fat chance of that to happen...)
-
quoted from the new york times
''
The patents were challenged by scientists and doctors who said that their research and ability to help patients had been frustrated. “Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” the plaintiffs told the Supreme Court in their petition seeking review (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/12-398-Petition.pdf). They added that the patents “prevent patients from examining their own genetic information” and “made it impossible to obtain second opinions.” ''
it would appear that the point has already been reached that the patents already privatley owned by companies are enough to legally restrict you from examining your own.
crops have been ever improved by careful and selective breeding, leeding to 'ownership' of the rights to that crop, 'rooster' potatoes as an example.
it would appear that humans are being viewed as a 'crop' as well. i hope the judge gets the right answer.
-
No is my answer but I feel that we are too late.
My take on this is that patents of genes that have been isolated as disease specific carriers have been issued by the US gov. I think that they have a list of genetic diseases that they will issue an isolated gene patent against. Such genes are already used to create animal models for the testing of drugs. This is big bucks and it is obvious that ownership of a gene will restrict the research and development of new therapies by other drug companies. These genes will include common diseases such as breasts cancer, types of muscular dystrophy, heart disease, cystic fibrosis, immune diseases etc etc
I guess that following on from making animal models of a disease is the use of modified genes and DNA to use as gene therapy. eg as in Cystic fibrosis.
Quote from the NIH Human Genome web site:
"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the agency that issues patents in the United States, has developed guidelines on the patenting of genetic discoveries. The current guidelines state that identification of a gene's sequence alone is not patentable, but that a gene isolated from its natural state may be patentable if the applicants can demonstrate "specific, substantial and credible utility" for the discovery".
-
In actual fact, I think this entire patenting business is wrong. So somebody has a good idea - great. Let's spread it around so that a maximum number of people have the benefit. (I suppose we have to turn to genuine communism to get everybody to adopt altruism big style! Fat chance of that to happen...)
There's a lot wrong with patenting. Some companies buy others so they can bury the technology and others patent stupid stuff like that war between Apple and Samsung. I have a small involvement with a company which has an incredible breakthrough which they are only prepared to talk about not to patent. If you patent an idea it tells the rest of the world how to steal it and rip you off.
-
No is my answer but I feel that we are too late.
Quote from the NIH Human Genome web site:
"The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the agency that issues patents in the United States, has developed guidelines on the patenting of genetic discoveries. The current guidelines state that identification of a gene's sequence alone is not patentable, but that a gene isolated from its natural state may be patentable if the applicants can demonstrate "specific, substantial and credible utility" for the discovery".
i suspect it is too late too mak.
the patents being owned serve only to RESTRICT research not expand it. shame.
-
This type of patenting can be abused in so many ways, if I were a carrier of a genetic disorder, I pay for the relacement of the faulty gene in the embryo of each of my children including the cost of the patented gene. As carriers of the modified gene, can the company now charge my decendents for every child they have through natural process, that carry the modified gene?
As it is, if your conventional or even organic crop is contaminated by pollen from a GM crop you are liable for charges by the GM company even though you are not benefitting from the gene in your crop, and might even be losing out as an organic crop contaminated in this way, loses its' organic status.
-
No
-
unfortunatly , yes, sabrina.
gm suppliers have regulalry successfully sued farmers because of cross comtamination and won.
im not sure how the use of patented genes woyld be paid for down the generations, but i suppose it is technically possinble.
-
The trouble is a lot of research is done by private companies who are not going to the do it if they can't make money from it. Perhaps it is a good thing that scientific knowledge has been expanded in this way. I work for a largely government funded research institute, and our research is generally open to the scientific community, but not everything can be funded this way. Maybe it is better to have a medical tool in a doctor's armoury and have to pay for it than to not have it at all.
-
True Dicky. just to be clear though - everyone who provides a service for th development and clinical trials of new therapies makes a lot of money. This is the main reason why most GPs are trying to provide the late phase ( tests in patients) work.
I am unsure about where most of the animal work is done these days ( prob top secret :D )but certainly a lot of exploratory stuff is done in large pharma's own labs. Phase 1 clinical trials have mostly moved to eastern europe and India becuase of cost. The NHS/university hospitals continue to have very poor recruitment rates for late phase 2-3 clinical trials - hence the push to get GP's participation . The cost and delay of getting therapies to market is already an issue and substance/gene patten will be one of the contributing factors. That said the legal teams who set up collaborative work with others wanting to use their gene under patten will create lots of work.
Ownership of a product that costs millions to develop, test and get to market seems sensibleand to me. I believe that Pfizer have spent millions trying to protect or slightly modify their big "cholestrol busting" drug and there are other examples of course. maybe this drives the demand to have a pattent on a gene.
-
My brother used to be involved in animal trials for a big pharma. The threats from the activists ensured that the trials moved round the other side of the world from a highy regulated nearby environment to a virtually unregulated far-away place.
So that was a great outcome for the animal activist, not to mention the animals.
-
Yep - exactly. Good Clinical Practice (GCP) costs a fortune and prices UK sites out of the market. I would rather sites in the UK test new therapies on animals rather than the essential work be done in eastern europe or further east. As for first in man or early phase studies in patient groups? I shudder how these studies are delievered if the Helsinki GCP points are not factored in with their contracts.
-
Iwork in science This country still does a vast amount of very benificial research using animals.
The company may well have the patent on the gene but to gain any credibility within the scientific community they have to publish data in scientific journals. Once they do this their science is open to critics, and is also generally replicateable.
Generally within institutes there is a goodwill or sharing culture with other scientific institutes, This is then a collaboration where data is backed up by institutes endorsing published papers within journals.
The original company may well hold the patent, but other institutes can access and use their data to continue research, which again backs up any of the original companies claims. If this doesn't happen research stands still. A companies claim to a cure or new drug will only hold credibility if other research establishments endorse it. Often data is shared and tissue or drugs are also shared without any money changing hands, it is only when a drug goes "on the market" for human use that generally a profit is made by the company.
The science race is very much out there and the race to be first to get your data published and so secure more funding to continue your research is frantic, but you have to be very sure that your gene or drug does what it says on the tin or you very soon get shot down.
To patent the gene and not allow others to research with it, is self destroying as i said before to gain any credibility you need other institutes to back up your data
-
radio 5 had an interesting morning in an animal research lab in oxford on tuesday i think, they get through 20 000 mice a week. it was an informative piece. i have nothing against animal testing to be honest.
'' “Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” that i find worrying, however.
-
radio 5 had an interesting morning in an animal research lab in oxford on tuesday i think, they get through 20 000 mice a week. it was an informative piece. i have nothing against animal testing to be honest.
'' “Myriad and other gene patent holders have gained the right to exclude the rest of the scientific community from examining the naturally occurring genes of every person in the United States,” that i find worrying, however.
Yes you are right it is worrying and too be honest immoral too, but it has been going on for years and as one of my senior scientists said to me when we were disscussing this " we just carry on regardless"
My institute relies on government and charity funding so we are not a money making venture. the race to be first to publish is still there, but that is for our name to be put on the map and then we secure more funding.
In America it's all about money. They still share data with us but that's because we don't make money from their research as a commercial venture.
To the outside world the scientific community appears as lots of people working together to cure human diseases unfortunately the reality is we are as competitive as any IT company and mega bucks can be made by commercial companies, our remit is to secure more funding so the grant bodies look our way when we publish in journals, but it is hard when big commercial companies like Myriad can out do us by millions
-
In many cases grants and charitable donnations have been replaced or topped up by commercial sponsorship. Taking the "buck" has long been an issue and some years ago I was been guilty of cynicism towards those who present posters, talks and evening ( drug company sponsored) symposia related to drug treatments rather than the pure science. But then we started to accept unconditional research grants from pharma. These funds paid for us to attend more overseas meetings ( we got the "meal ticket"), employ more staff and buy more equipment. Our research capability took off and we attracted yet more commercial sponsorship. Yes we did their drug trials but it also allowed us to fund independant research although some of us did eventually leave to join pharma companies.
These days most universities and teaching hospitals have a Research and Development department or business development team dedictated to income generation. The challenge is to spread the "sponsorship" so that you are not seen to be in the pocket of a large sponsor or drug company. This rather falls down when the carrot is so big that you name a new building after the drug company.
There is a massive ammount of corporate money that floods into scientific institutions and this funds work that I do not think the public purse can support. It is a good thing that the companies owning patents are good at making money otherwise they could not fund research in some institutions to the level they do.
So on reflection I have mixed views about gene or drug patent. I am optimistic that the scientific integrity of commercially sponsored researchers will not be compromised by their relationship with their sponsor and that the scientists employed by companies such as Myriad will continue to share knowledge and support research in their field outside of their company.