Should DNA be Patentable? 257
nexex writes: "This story seems brings the patent debate home; specifically, should a company or person be able to 'own' your DNA? Obviously researchers want to profit from their discoveries, thus funding new research. But critics counter they are profitting at the expense of our health, citing restrive screening licenses for things such as breast cancer and Alzheimer's. Citing a figure from a UK activist group, 500,000 gene or gene sequence patents have been applied for worldwide. Another excellent article on this issue from Salon.com was from a couple years ago."
too late (Score:3, Insightful)
NO! (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents should protect new ideas, not entities that are already present in nature and are waiting to be found.
However, when you can put a piece of DNA to use in any way, the methodology your technique follows should be patentable. A new method for application of a certain DNA sequence is something that can be new and innovative.
Depends on patent length (Score:2, Insightful)
Kjella
Please understand.. (Score:4, Insightful)
THey can patent specific genes for a specific purpose.
So if they discover a gene that permits them to do something interesitng, like grow you a third arm... they can patent that.
If they discover a gene that will make you smarter... they can patent that.
They cannot patent genes until they have a use for them.
Properties of Nature (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents that attempt to cover general applicability of properties of nature are invalid and the courts that uphold such patents in error.
For shame (Score:3, Insightful)
My position (Score:3, Insightful)
The space of all-possible-digital-information maps directly onto the space of integers. Asking for a patent on a chunk of digital information (DNA, object code, what have you) is the same as asking for a patent on an integer. The claim that "oh, but it's a very large integer" is specious. Patents are for inventions not facts-of-math.
Copyright is only slightly more reasonable.
-- MarkusQ
Re:Patenting therapies, not the gene (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, the patented chemical compound is a piece of DNA or RNA which is useful for a number of things. You can use it to detect DNA with a complementary sequnce from a patient's tissue sample. Thus, it is a research tool just as you might patent a clever electronic spectrophotometic tool. The highly indignant researcher from Penn was using a patented research tool which was very expensive to invent and perfect. Myriad and the other research companies have just as valid a right to ask to be paid for its efforts as HP or Lucent's Bell Labs.
It isn't supposed to be... (Score:2, Insightful)
Some conspiracy theorists see this as a move by the US, which holds much of the capability to find DNA combinations, to try and corner the lucrative market of owning this fact. The US holds a lot of power with its patent office and most of the world regards it as the gate keeper as well as fear the Patent Office since the US holds a big stick to protect it's patent system.
The patenting of fact looks much like the DMCA when held up to the light.
patentable only if (Score:4, Insightful)
they can document the functionality down to the level that computer code is now
The functionality is one that is not previously existing or discovered in nature.
a unique combination of features where the majority of the code is new work. The thought here is that Ford company probably could not patent a new engine unless they owned the patents on the component parts and technologies. But there are an indefinite number of ways to build car engines.
Thus one probably could not patent a fire breathing dragon, but could patent the various implementations of the various subsystems.
patenting huge random chunks of DNA, hoping that something practical will come out of it is not the way to go.
Re:Patenting therapies, not the gene (Score:4, Insightful)
Patenting genes that occur in nature would be an obviously questionable practice, and it worries me that this issue has been kicking around unresolved for at least two years. But the thing you are describing here also worries me: it sounds like you're saying that the genetic information is properly unpatentable, but having sequenced it, I could apply for a patent controlling ANY useful application of that information. I would prefer to see patents limited to controlling a specific application of the information.
But the obviously worst-case scenario would be where any fool could operate a sequencer for a couple weeks, and patent whatever he gets, regardless of whether an application is apparent at the time of filing.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Manifestations of nature...not patentable (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the patents are for use of DNA sequences in diagnotics assays. A general assay procedure itself might be patentable, but I'd think the hybridization of DNA or it's related biological functions would be considered manifestations of nature.
If a company invents a treatment they should patent that.
Someone needs to take these greedheads to court.
Re:Please understand.. (Score:2, Insightful)
To a University, which is a very conservative institution, most of the time, the risk of being sued, and losing, is simply untenable. Especially when you consider the staggering damages that might potentially be awarded - how much is something private "worth," if it has been released into the public domain at no profit for the party releasing it?
The same is true of venture capitalists. If I have a good idea, my ability to get backing is in a lot of danger if there are people waiting in the wings with lawsuits. Backing a biotech venture is pretty risky business anyway - adding in a 5% chance that, even if my method is teneable, it is going to be nuked, or the profits all siphoned off, in the courts, is not helpful; if you take into account the chance of potentially ruinous additional delay is more like one in three, well, it is a serious issue.
It is very naive to say that only the final decisions which courts reach are relevant.
DNA patents (Score:2, Insightful)
If they were to follow the patenting of discoveries to its logical conclusion, then I could patent air, the sun, stars, the moon, gravity,
As far as intellectual property goes, there are a plethora of things that fall under common knowledge, such as "for loops" or sorting routines, that can't be copyrighted.
Finally there is the idea that somethings will do or currently does the world so much good that it can't be copyrighted with the intent of making money, or impeding its use. This would include "air-bags", and vaccines for such things as polio. We see this in the software field with "Open Source" or "Copy Lefted" copyrights.
Patents are for thing that may contain DNA, or for DNA sequences which are original works. The problem with "original works", is of course proving it, thus giving more weight to the argument of excluding DNA from Copyrighting/Patenting.
The dangers of terminology. (Score:3, Insightful)
it is intellectual property that's been unclaimed
...as if intellectual property is part of a landscape you want to stake your claim to, instead of being part of the creative process. Sigh. If only we could discuss it differently, as a means instead of an end, or a journey more than a destination.
Re:Patent Tests not DNA (Score:2, Insightful)
If the test uses a novel method to detect the presence of something fine patent it. But to allow a patent which basically describes itself as "A test for the presence of this sequence