Poet Patents Her Genes

This is too weird not to run: An AP story about a poet who's patenting her own genes. 'I wish to protect myself from unauthorised exploitation, genetic or otherwise,' said MacLean, 30, in her application. 'I am new. I have led a private existence and have not made the invention of myself public. I am not obvious.' Well, I can't argue with that.

Re:Definite prior art: Her parents

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh? Would you care to point me to the reference where her parents have published her genes?

For something to be prior art, it has to be published, a point which seems to be lost on most /.ers.

Nope, poet doesn't patent her genes--not yet

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note she has applied for a patent on herself. That doesn't mean the patent will be granted.

Protective like the GPL?

[Lulu of the Lotus-Ea]

This is a great action by the poet. It sounds like she understands what is going on with the "land grab" by the biotech corporations, and it is a semi-serious political action, not just a joke.

The thing about this is that maybe if she gets the patent, she can use it againt the m**f** biotech corporations who are trying to charge rent on future medical treatements (and worse even, when it comes to privacy, bio-screening, and stuff like that). If Biopatents-Are-Us starts marketing some new gene-based treatment (or more likely, starts putting muscle on a company actually making a treatment), MacLean can counter-sue them with prior ownership of that same gene (assuming that particular one is in her own genome).

Maybe this is what a lot of people should start doing... just to make sure of good coverage of all the possible genes (although almost all human genes are actually common to all humans... or for that matter, to all primates... so you don't get much additional coverage in the second patents).

here's heilein's opinion...

[echo-e]

"'...you don't own your genes.... Genes belong to the race; they're simply lent to the individual for his-her lifetime.'"
-Rober Heinlein, _Time Enough for Love_

So...

[Evil Poot Cat]

I wonder if this means she can claim prior art against the aliens' cloning project. ;)

Seriously...this does illustrate the problem. Hypothetically, ten years from now, we discover that this person has an immunity to disease x, she'll be able to collect royalties on treatments derived from any samples she provides.

This does, of course, require that the person in question be recognized as an "economic driver", which she won't be, therefore no patent.

This is really unnecessary.

[Alik]

It's an interesting bit of performance art, but practically speaking, nobody needs to do this. No existing government would allow a company to say "We found the genes for lung development, so everyone pay us royalties." Sure, a government that's been completely taken over by the company in question would allow it, but if that's happened, how much protection is a patent going to give you?

What will happen is that companies will be allowed to say "We found the genes for lung development and have created a cure for cystic fibrosis. Pay for it." Honestly speaking, I think that's fair. There's a reasonably large investment of time and money that has to be made to sequence genes, work out what they do, and turn that into useful therapy.

Most gene patents to date (or at least the ones I personally have seen) are along the lines of "This is a sequence which allows you to perform this operation on the genome. Pay us and we'll sell you copies of it." What you'll get in the vial they send you is a molecule that one is unlikely to find in nature. To me, that means we can't complain that they're patenting a natural law.

I will admit that I do not trust the big biotech companies to be any nicer than Amazon or Microsoft or Sun. However, most of their current nastiness is in sneaking genetically modified foods around without bothering to tell anyone (at least in the USA). To date, I have not seen an abuse of gene patents. Until we know what form the abuse will take, we can't directly outlaw it. (As an analogy for those who've played RPGs, consider the attempts of a GM to keep players on a straight track. It never works. People will always find something different to do than you expected.)

Re:This is really unnecessary.

[Alik]

Almost exactly one week later, I must retract my comment and call myself an idiot for believing that government has any sense. The US government really does allow people to say "We found the gene for X, so we have dibs on all commercial stuff involving X." Here's [hgsi.com] the press release I'm thinking of; I just submitted this as a story as well (as, no doubt, did three trillion others).

O brave new world, that hath such people in it.

From the "Ha, beat you to it!" dept.

[Louis_Wu]

Any ideas on how expensive it would be to patent myself?

And does this mean that (assuming the patent comes through), future patents on "common" genetic material/structure/code/etc. will be invalid due to a previous patent?

Go girl!

Re:Kids and patented genes

[Louis_Wu]

That leads me to an interesting question:

When/if genetics and bio-engineering are advanced enough, what laws would prevent a doctor from sampling my genetic material and using it for his own purposes? If I have a strong resistance to HIV, he might be able to make money using my genes in research or in finding a cure. Or, if I were a Nobel Prize winning Olympic Decathelete (I wish), he could use my genes to make 'better' children for wealthy parents.

Specifically: would a personal patent on my genetic structure be enough to stop this? And if he did sample me, could I sue for rights, money, a share of the companies, etc.?

Your children may not have to pay for the use of your genetic material, because it isn't strictly your genetic material they have, it is a unique combination of yours and your spouse's.

BTW, the way copyrights are going, I wouldn't be surprised if patent life were extended in the next few years. I love it when people misunderstand the intent of a law; intentional misunderstanding or not. ;)

Question for the to be Personal Patented

[Markar]

Is she trying to get a patent because she is a person with character? Or because as a person she is quite a character?

Kids and patented genes

[Froomkin]

I've said for years that my kids should be paying me license fees for their use of my genes.

Only problem is that the life of a patent doesn't extend to their prime income-earning years....

Next problem: what if I want to revoke that license?

A. Michael Froomkin [mailto],
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA