In today’s issue of the International Herald Tribune, Michael Crichton wrote Who owns your genes? Patenting life. Here’s an excerpt:
In the United States, gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctors. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: A test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.
Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can’t even donate their own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it’s now viewed as private property.
It’s basically a rehash of the arguments from his latest book, Next. He makes some important points but if gene/DNA patents are truly on the decline, his concerns may be moot before too long.
Tags: michael crichton, next, gene patents, patents, dna patents, genetics, genome, genes, dna, diseases, illness, health
It’s understandable that hard work of a scientist should be acknowledged by giving patents for limited years on the use of a particular gene to treat disease or any other medical, agricultural or environmental use. however it’s not fair to let someone own a sequence which has been developed by mother nature over thousands of years of evolution. Applying the macroeconomic theory of incentive in this case is a bit flawed I guess! Just my two cents:)
Regards
Heh heh, I didn’t know that I’d aligned myself to a camp, but I can see how that happened. It just weirds me out that someone owns the patent to something that has been part of my body since my conception. It’s disquieting.
kk
Kristen: I can see what camp you belong to.
The argument is that it takes a lot of work to sequence genes and figure out what they do. Companies wouldn’t have incentive to do so unless they get the rights to how the genetic information is used. But enforcing such gene patents is pretty darn hairy.
Andrew: Thank you for dropping by and leaving the link to your blog!
Crichton’s knowledge of patent law is spotty, but he’s on the right side of the debate. For a more detailed discussion, please see my blog.
Forgive me for being dense, but I simply don’t understand how anyone can patent a gene. Just because you discover it or elucidate its role in fill-in-the-blank doesn’t mean you should be able to get a corner on the whatever-gene-it-is market. How on earth is that scientific progress? It seems just the opposite to me.
kk