How To: Patenting Human Genes

Wow so they can patent a certain gene then charge people to use their diagnostic equipment to be tested..

That seems fishy to me...

"I think we're talking about unreasonable profit and exploitation of people at risk," said M. Sara Rosenthal, director of the University of Kentucky Program for Bioethics. "The issue is greed, which is never ethical."

Greed and control. You have the patent, you control the testing and the fees that are charged for such testing, eliminating competition and options for patients.

Patent on the type of testing is one thing, patent on the gene responsible for the disease is quite another.

Go ACLU!

This is very simple and wrong. You cannot patent something you did not create. If they can prove they created the genes and those genes did not previously exist then they can patent it. Until they prove it, they cannot. Otherwise, they were just the first to see it. By that logic the first person who say a galaxy or a quasar could patent them and we would all owe them money every time we looked at one. Or the first person to see a new species, do they get to patent the species and claim ownership over all of them? No, its a ridiculous line of thinking.

If you can patent a gene of a specific disease and then require all people in the US to carry health insurance (by law)...this could be very profitable. Nice 80/20 policy. Your ins requires you get "health screenings" and then treatment...even preventative care can be very profitable. 20% of your treatment costs...profitable. Then take a look at what medical treatment and diagnostics cost...nice profit motive now for the ins co, pharma, etc.

You may not have a choice, the way it is being set up, ins co may insist on your "health screenings," even if you do not wish to know if you carry the gene for certain diseases...ie the breast cancer ones. Just because you have the gene doesn't mean you will manifest the disease but you may be forced by law to treat a disease you may never get...all based on statistics and the patented genes.

Just another way to reach deep into your pockets. Saves the big corps...but in the long run not the people. They will still have to pay and the people they will have to pay will be written in the laws. It is leagalized extortion all in the disguise of "in your best interest." I can hear the advertising now, "If you had the choice to change your future, not to suffer the horrifying deaths of your mothers and sisters...wouldn't you do it?" And our answer will be, "yes of course." Because they played on our fears of suffering and emotional pain.

Is it wrong to not want to know what is written as possibilities in your genetic code?

The article mentions 20 years patent as not profitable. I disagree...20 years of screenings...and treatments due to the screening outcome...very profitable!

Start taking a look at what requirements the corporations are lobbying for in health care reform and this article makes more sense.

This patent office is completely out of control.

I’m going to file a patent on my penis.

France under took the human Genome project the right way, it's public domain.

My Genes are not patentable!, period!

Here's a little-known fact: Under current law, it's possible to hold a patent on a piece of human DNA, otherwise known as a gene.

Folks, look deeper in what's really going on. This article unknowingly demonstrates that the way we think and the way we perceive things through an ethical prism are due in large part to the economic system. It's like psychological analysis wherein the analyst attempts to find the bottom of things, things that are hidden. Only in a truly Capitalist system like ours can one think of patenting a form of life or its basis, in this case genes. Conservatives and Republicans in general spew their 'holier than thou' nonsense that a single human fertilized egg is life and any attempt to abort it is immoral. However, many of these same people have no problem when their friends in Corporate America can make a buck off of things, in this case genes, which constitute the basis of life. What it all comes down to is that money trumps everything in our society.

This is a very important subject in Science...what or what isn't patentable? I work in human molecular genetics, and I understand views from both sides. On one hand, scientists like patents because they prevent other people from "scooping" your work and taking credit for something that you worked very hard to discover. On the other, people will abuse patent law to charge exhorbant fees for therapeutic/diagnostic purposes.

The fact that the genes were patented doesn't bother me in the least bit, because at the time I can see how they justified it. The technology at the time was basically a fishing expedition, and the people that finally caught it wanted to protect their discovery. Now we know the full coding of the human genome, so today it would be impossible to patent a gene itself. It is no longer novel. We are only able to patent gene modifications/mutations as well as potential therapeutic interventions stemming from functions of the gene.

What makes me mad is that they're charging $3,000 for one diagnostic evaluation!? I do this kind of stuff everyday. It's really easy to do and nowhere near that expensive. Let's say you pay about $60/hour for the labor, $20 (plus or minus about $5) for reagents per patient sample at most, you're looking at a total of about $500 at most per sample, and most of that is labor. So they're bascially making about $2,500 profit on each patient screened. And we wonder why our health care system is so screwed up!!! No one's monitoring this crap. And if someone is, it's probably a person that has a financial interest in the product.

Well, I'm not an expert on patent law, but I'm pretty sure (~99%) that a gene or stretch of DNA is no longer up for patent. The entire human genome has been mapped and is readily available to the public online. Therefore, the technology that exists today has eliminated the novelty of the basic human genome sequence in general.

The process of how research works in human genetics and disease research is too complicated for me to go into here (it would take a text book to explain). Basically though, one approach is to first look at patients with a certain disease and use a variety of methods to track down the source of the problem down to the protein and genetic level. Then functional studies are done to validate whether or not the proposed gene is involved. If the gene does turn out to be important, the idea or event revolving around the gene in the context of the specific disease can be patented. Then, people usually look for a way to exploit the genetic problem by intervening with drugs, small molecules, antibodies, and other means of manipulation to treat the disease. If testing of this product works, that is patentable. This goes on until the drug or agent goes through clinical trials and subsequent approval for use in humans.

The true purpose of the patent is to keep others from taking your ideas and beating you to the desired outcome, therefore receiving credit for the entire work. This can happen easily to people at smaller institutions with limited resources if a larger, better-equipped entity picks up the idea and runs with it. Lately though, companies like big pharma and others have used patent law to make lots of money by capitalizing on the health care industry. True, a patent is supposed to help retain profits to those that create the idea/product, but they have been abusing these privileges and getting away with it.

I'm going to create a master race and patent it.

You'll thank me ... No, really, you will...

Court battles are guaranteed a la Monsanto's seed genes patents. They've sued and been sued over normal pollenation. I can only imagine the human suit varieties.

It's all greed for money and ripping off people and make sure there are many, many poor...