“Can companies own human genes?
The field of genetics has been an exploding field of innovations. It seems like biotechnicians,
healthcare professionals, molecular geneticists, researchers, and companies are
racing to claim the latest discovery in genetics as their own.
Biotech companies, in particular, are at the forefront of these
advancements and investing big money to have the most reliable and up-to-date
genetic tests with the latest genes discovered. To be accredited for their efforts, there is some debate
about the ability to patent a gene, similar to a patent on a new invention.
What is your opinion on patenting genes? Can companies claim the right (and, in turn, deny the right)
to disclose to patients specific information about variations in “their” genes
that they discovered? Furthermore,
do you think companies with patented genes should have the right to stop other
companies from working on their “claimed” genes? What outcomes (good or bad) can come of this from both the
research and patient perspectives?
http://biotech.about.com/b/2013/01/16/can-companies-own-human-genes.htm
I think it is preposterous for a company to claim and, in turn, deny the right to disclose to patients specific information about variation in the genes belonging to the patient but discovered by the company. The key words there are "belonging" to and "discovered" by. The article plainly states: "It is not the way the tests are run that is unique. What makes a gene unique is the information encoded by the DNA, which is determined by the order in which the chemical components that make up DNA are linked together". Therefore patenting and restricting access to information encoded by an individual's DNA seems, to me, to be a violation of personal rights and property rights. It is even stated in the article that companies "cannot own the natural sequence of our genes outright", so instead companies patent gene variation sequences. If companies are to be given any rights of restriction it should be the right to restrict the unique manner (if any) in which tests are run, or perhaps unique equipment used to run such tests. With that said, I do not think that companies with patented gene should have the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes. But the way I understand it is that a patent on a gene gives a company such a right. My issue is with the patenting of genes at all. I see no good outcomes resulting from the patenting of human biological composition.
ReplyDeleteBiotech companies absolutely have the right to make a profit from developing new tests, techniques, products, and services related to genetic research. Their research is extremely expensive and time consuming and there would be no incentive for their innovation if there were no money to be made. HOWEVER, these companies (Myriad, etc.) are abusing their free market privileges; anti-trust legislation has been introduced and widely supported that allows healthy competition - a staple of free market capitalism - to flourish and promote even more innovation. The biotech companies are creating "monopolies" of specific genes (BRCA 2, etc.) that are anti-competition and limit the health benefits for patients, all in the name of profit. There's a clear difference between patenting a specific genetic test and patenting any test for a specific gene.
ReplyDeleteThe "good" outcomes of gene patenting are only for the patentees - huge profits. The negative outcomes are more numbered: an anti-competitive market that drives up costs, limited tests and products for patients who may have life-threatening genetic diseases, and possibly a stymied biotechnology industry. I'm confident that the SCOTUS will outline the difference, in legal terms, between specific gene patenting and specific product/service patenting.
Companies should have no right to own sequences of DNA since the spread of knowledge in the scientific field hinges upon these discoveries remaining public domain. To analyze, treat or sequence certain fragments is one thing, but to monopolize people's choice will prove problematic in coming years when the technology to assess DNA more quickly converges with care and treatment. Pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies create and extract certain chemicals and devices from the environment or synthetically but DNA is a reoccurring and constant piece of all human beings therefore to own rights to them is possibly the biggest misstep in advancing genomics in the next few decades. People have a right to seek multiple sources of care and it should be considered illegal if a single company has control over its but does not have the understanding to treat certain patients, this can create a desperate search for personalized care that will take too long to find treatment for. The CDC does not own diseases. The FDA does not own your food. And by the same principle, a genetics company should not own your DNA.
ReplyDeleteThe Biotech businesses are companies. In order for a company to thrive, it absolutely needs to be credited and paid for the tests, medications and innovations that they come up with. The expenses to run these tests enough to yield credible results are usually extremely large. That being said, a company should never have the right to withhold, control or own sequences of DNA or knowledge that could potentially mean life or death for someone else. Thinking back on Myriad genetic testing, although I agreed that Myriad might have the monopoly on the test, it was gross of them to charge $3'000 per test. If you are the only company holding the profits from a certain test, it is your responsibility to make it accessible for EVERYONE. NOTHING in this field should be withheld from a patient simply because of bureaucratic paperwork. Healthcare is not a product like other products in the American economy- it can mean life or death for someone.
ReplyDeleteI think patenting genes is an unethical practice of manipulating the use of high quality technology and business to profit on natural occurrences and human variation. The choice on who get's to know about their information should not be put into the hands of biotech companies. I agree that research and development for these kinds of tests is costly and takes time to develop but that doesn't automatically allow them to control a person's genetic information.
ReplyDeleteI think companies shouldn't be able to monopolize on their discoveries of certain genes especially if other research and development could be expanded upon by having various companies work on the research of certain genes. From the patients point of view nothing should be restricted it should be their right to know their own genetic information. There should be rules as to how far a company can go in claiming their right to someone else's genetic information and how they can restrict the right of people knowing about their DNA.
I do not believe that biotechnology companies have the right to patent genes. Companies exist for business and to be profitable, and therefore they should be apart of a competitive market for their services. A competitive market will drive down costs of expensive testing and in return demand will increase. I wonder if some companies have ever thought of trademarking certain technologies to gain a certain percentage of profits while allowing the technology to be used by other companies. The article states that "a genetic test mainly relies on the knowledge of what variations of DNA to look for, not on how to identify the variations". The "knowledge of what variations of DNA to look for" could be shared at an expense to an investor while the company discovered the variation profits.
ReplyDeleteI'm not opposed to biotech companies capitalizing off of developments related to genetic research. As the article points out, these companies would not have much of an incentive to make investments without the right to profit. If a company is funneling a lot of time and money into projects, they should be able to gain something from it. People and businesses alike usually act for their own self interest. That said, profit becomes troublesome when it's at the expense of people's health, and that's exactly what seems to be happening. Without any competition, companies can charge hefty prices for genetic testing, thus deterring at risk individuals from getting the testing they need. Myriad is one example of this. A number of women who have a family history of breast and ovarian cancer put off testing for the BRCA mutation or skip it all together because it's expensive, and the price continues to rise despite this.
ReplyDeleteThe only beneficial aspect of patenting I can see is the incentive it provides to companies as I previously mentioned. However, I think think that the bad outweighs the good in this case. Companies should not be able to claim or deny the right disclose genetic information to patients, nor should they be able to prevent competitors from conducting research on the genes they supposedly own. Although I understand that companies make investments to profit from them, patenting genes defeats the central purpose of scientific research: improving health and well-being, or at least preparing a person for a disease or condition they may develop in the future.
I believe that it is okay for biotechnology companies to patent genes because just like any other "product", genetic testing is a business and should have a competitive nature. I feel that these companies invest a lot of money into these discoveries and should be able to benefit from their findings. In my opinion, genetic testing is similar to the development of a drug in the sense that they are meant to be sold to consumers to benefit the people who undergo the testing. Like medicine patents, the patents for genes would expire and then other companies will be able to work with those genes to create their own form of genetic testing, just like generic versions of drugs. When it comes to the patient I do not believe that it is right to withhold the genetic information from the person that the test was conducted on. Keeping other companies from being able to work with the gene is one thing, but denying a person from their genetic information is unethical in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that especially in the US a free market set up in which companies can create a patent on their research is necessary. Without patents there is no incentive for companies to work to develop anything further if their research can be easily used by other companies without credit to the original discoverer. I also believe that it is not wrong for a company to make a profit off of their work. Without profit, there is no incentive for companies to invest funds into their research. The “cut-throat” environment of research is what drives discovery. However, I do believe that where this information could be medically valuable and where the "data" they are using/collecting is derived from people's naturally occurring DNA, there needs to be a limitation on what companies can patent and how much they can actually profit from their findings.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, in the case of Myriad, they charge a very steep price to test for variations in BRCA 1 and 2. Assuming that the test is not very expensive (once the R&D has been done), the company is making almost entirely profit off of the consumer. The percentage of profit is not what concerns me, but the fact that this life-saving test is inaccessible to so many people is disgusting. Many people are afraid to subsidize the test with insurance for fear of discrimination. This means that their only option is to pay out of pocket. Many people cannot afford the test, so they forgo it. Myriad should be ashamed that the test costs as much as it does. It is one thing to profit, and entirely another to take advantage of concerned consumers.
The other major question in this article is what exactly should be patented? Surely, DNA itself cannot be patented by companies because it does not belong to them, it is naturally occurring, and most importantly not very unique. DNA itself has a proportionally small amount of variation from person to person. It would not make sense for a company to patent this. However, companies have argued that they should be able to patent the synthesized and organized DNA they make in the lab. They should be able to use the genes that they have found (such as in the case of Myriad). My issue with this is small. I think they should have a right to pursue research uninterrupted and without competition for a little while. However, they should not be able to monopolize such genes. The window of time without competitors should be relatively short to allow as much advancement as possible. They solutions and implications such research could yield are too valuable to be held up due to business practices.
I do not agree with the ability for a company to patent genes. I believe that takes away from the right of privacy and property and only each person is the owner of his or her genes. If companies have the right to claim or deny patients with specific information about their genes, I think that will be harmful to a patient and to the scientific world. A patient deserves to know what is going on inside his or her body, because he/she is the owner of the body. It is unfair if companies disclose information and if they disclose the information from the rest of the science field, then they are hindering the process of gaining knowledge in the genetics field.
ReplyDeleteCompanies with patented genes should not have the right to stop other companies from working on their “claimed” genes. I think that this will slow the process of gaining useful information in regards to the gene. I think that having various companies investigating a specific gene is better than just one. Different mindsets and approaches to gaining knowledge can facilitate faster results. I do think that if a company gains great knowledge about a gene, Myriad with BRAC1/2 for instance, they should be compensated. But I do not think it is right that they are the only company that can do any research on this gene. Companies should be compensated for the tests they run otherwise they wont be able to afford them, but I do not think it should be limited to one company. I believe that patents put more of a strain on the science world and are not beneficial in the long run.
This is a very controversial topic and a very confusing one for me, because I can see the arguments on either side. On one hand, I'm sure that these companies spend a great deal of time and money on a genetic test before it goes out to market. And I agree with the notion that these companies have a right to profit off of their product, as they are the ones that spent the time and money to bring it to market. I think the way this works for prescription drugs is decently fair; the company who originally creates the drug has sole rights to it for a set number of years and then it is up for grabs. However, in the case of drugs, there is a clear product that has been invented, and that is not the case for genes in genetic testing. I think it is important to note, as the article points out, that " a genetic test mainly relies on the knowledge of what variations of DNA to look for, not on how to identify the variations". In this case of Myriad and the BRCA genes, they have created something that will help save lives, but I do think they are abusing their power. Especially after seeing the video interview we watched in class, they do not seem to have any interest in making this test more affordable or even fairly priced based on their costs of performing the test. They may have ruined it for future companies because they have incited such controversy over the cost of the test. While I can understand from an economic point why they would want to patent a gene, I'm not a business or economic professional, I'm a public health student. This definitely influences me as I know how much good could come of having these genetic tests available for more people and I would probably have to side with whatever option allowed for that to happen. I'm very glad to hear this case is going to the Supreme Court because I think it is something that needs an answer and because it is such a confusing, loaded topic.
ReplyDeleteAs we have seen before in the corporate medical industry, healthcare and medical research serves dual purposes. One purpose is to further medical knowledge and assist in improving the health of the society as a whole. The other is monetary in nature and directly relates to the mission of a company - to make profits.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of patenting gene combinations, it is a strange loophole between not being able to patent natural compounds and being able to patent discovered combinations. Do I believe they should be able to patent them? No. Are they able to? Absolutely. Due to this "right" that they hold on these genes, they are able to bar other companies from using them for research (such as Myriad). Is this morally right? Absolutely not, allowing other companies could only help to further the health field and benefit patients. From a business perspective however it is extremely lucrative and an intelligent business venture. Pros of this singular right is that the research could be very focused and follow a linear path of development without being distracted by what routes others are taking. Cons for research and patients are that research is not being dictated by the pace of others so it may not move as fast as it could. When there is competition there is speed and progress, meaning that if just one company controls the pace of research it may not be as fast paced as it could.
I do not agree with the fact that these Biotech companies can have the ability to patent gene combinations, and in most cases, keep this information from us. If these companies "own" these gene combinations then it burdens other companies to use this information in further research, so it seems a bit silly to allow these companies to do this. Going backwards, I do see why these companies can argue that they deserve the patents. They do in fact spend a lot of money on the testing and the products and that it may consume a great deal of time and effort. It would be crazy for them to not try to patent this and make more money off their findings, however, I just think looking towards the majority, it seems unfair. Maybe there could be a happy medium between these companies and others who actually could use this information.
ReplyDeleteWith all that being said, it would not be fair nor appropriate for these companies to withhold, control or own sequences of DNA. They could be withholding life-changing information and the patient may not even have any idea. There needs to be some sort of agreement between these companies and those whose genes are being tested to insure the patients best interest is ahead of profits. I see why these companies want to prevent others from using anything they spent time and efforts on, but I don't think it should completely hinder other companies from continuing to study or research the same gene. This is an evolving area of study and should continue to evolve. With that, I don't think they should completely hinder other companies from advancing their studies.
Alexandra Kramer
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't know much more about patenting our genes than what is discussed in the article, I'm a little skeptical about it. I find that there is not enough evidence proving that this the patenting is actually logical and fair. I also find it weird that we are making yet another aspect of health about competition and money. I acknowledge that money is definitely a major drive for motivation and much has been discovered because of that motivation, but to make this discovery about making money instead of saving lives seems to be pushing the boundaries of the medical field. I'm not necessarily saying it is wrong to patent the genes, I'm just saying it seems a little far fetched at this point.
I think a lot is said in some key statements in the article: "It is not the way the tests are run that is unique. What makes a gene unique is the information encoded by the DNA, which is determined by the order in which the chemical components that make up DNA are linked together". The fact that it is not how the tests are run demonstrates, in my opinion, the inability for us to say that it can be owned by someone.
As usual, this article addresses the many gray areas that we face when dealing with ethical, economic, and social issues that come up in the health care field. We want to encourage discoveries, but in a way that still respects the scientists, doctors, and people themselves.
I do not believe that companies can claim the right to disclose to patients specific information about variations in “their” genes that they discovered. At the end of the day, the company would not have had access to those genes if the patients had not given permission to the company to use them in their research study. Therefore, if the results of the research indicate that there is some genetic variation, that information should be disclosed to the individual if they want it. I have always believed in giving credit where credit is due. However, the business of patented genes is very tricky because of how information derived from those patented genes is used. If a company discovers something important about an already “claimed” gene, that company should not be stopped from continuing to determine how their information can be used to help others in the future. The company with a gene patent has a right to be notified of the progress that the other company has made, and perhaps the company with the gene patent should encourage the other company to work with them so that all resources can be pooled. However, if the goal is to help individuals, then preventing others from working on genes just because your company was the first to discover that gene, then isn’t that kind of hurting the process of helping people? It seems to me that all companies should be pooling their resources so that they can help the most number of people. I feel as though when companies prevent other companies from working on their already patented genes, they are forgetting the end goal of discovering information on these genes. Although credit and funding might get mixed up in the process of many companies working together to solve the common goal, I think that if all resources from each company were to be combined, then it would be easier for companies to find life-changing information and discover treatments to cure the diseases that the genes in question are causing.
ReplyDeleteI do not think companies should patent genes. The point of patents is to give credit to the person who founded the item however, it gives limited access of information to everyone including other companies and the patients. Companies with patented genes should not have the right to stop other companies from working on their claimed genes because it will slow down the innovative research process. With more companies involved in the research, the more competitive it is, and then the more discoveries there will be. The outcome that come out of this from the research perspective is greater chance of profits because they are basically monopolizing the certain gene and research on that gene and they can set whatever the price they want (Myraid sets $3000 and probably has no incentive to lower it because people would pay since there is no competition). The outcome that come out of this from the patient perspective is uncertainty about the price and the quality. They are not sure if the price and quality would be good because there is no one else to compare it to. It would decrease the access of this test to certain groups and it would make it impossible for a second opinion of the results.
ReplyDeleteThere is one thing that I can think about that goes against my thoughts and that is that if there are no patents and multiple companies can work on a gene, then that means advertisement costs gets included as a percentage in the companies' costs (where as Myraid probably has none or very little advertisement costs because they don't really need it). For example, in the pharmaceutical industry it is very cheap to make drugs but they are very expensive in the US because of the high advertisement costs. To make sure this does not happen, there could be a health policy for a ceiling amount of advertisement for companies that are working on genes. This is so there can still be competition and the costs of the test would not be so high.
I believe that patenting genes is one of the most ridiculous ideas that companies, specifically the biotech companies have come up with to increase profits. I do agree that if a company expends its time and energy researching different aspects of genes they should receive credit for doing so. However, patenting them and being the single player when it comes to specific genes seems ridiculous. Genes are hereditary units that exist in every human being, and because some have different versions or are expressed differently does not give any sole proprietor the right to "claim" them. Considering the companies are the ones who are doing research and testing, they technically should have the say as to whether information be disclosed to the patients. Normally, I would be a proponent of that, for other circumstances or manmade substances. However, genes are something that we all carry and if more can be learned through obtaining help from other companies, there is no doubt in my mind that companies should be required to give their patients this right. One aspect of patenting genes that I would condone is that of the right to stop other companies from working with the genes. The only reason I would even consider this is because of all the hard work that is being put in by one organization they should receive credibility. However, a way that could benefit more organizations is if one is interested in working with a gene that a previous company researched, they could create a team incorporating ideas from both companies.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my fellow classmates that have stated that they do not believe that genes should be patented by companies. Patenting genes restrains other companies from doing research on these genes and discovering new drugs, preventive measures, or other knowledge about these genes. Patenting drugs goes against the idea of prevention. If more companies have a right to do research and testing with these genes, I strongly believe that diseases could be prevented more often. I especially disagree with the idea of patenting genes because genes exist in nature, they are not something that the company itself has built. Genes exist in all humans and therefore I believe that all humans should have a right to these genes, companies should not be able to claim a right over a certain gene. I do not think that the time and money that a company puts into a given gene should play a role in this argument because ultimately we are talking about the prevention of disease and the possibility to save a life. If more companies are able to do research on a gene, there will undoubtedly be a greater yield of information on this gene, which could help those suffering. Despite my opposition and because it would ultimately be impossible to completely expel gene patents, I think that there could be an agreement, with some kind of profit for the company that originally discovered the gene, could be made among companies that want to do research on the given gene.
ReplyDeleteI’m very glad that someone is finally challenging Myraid Genetics’ patent on the BRCA genes. I’m pretty sure their company outraged us all when we were watching the film in class. Without competition in the market, they can set the price at any cost to the consumer. With such an important genetic test, this cost seems like an unfair burden to the consumer who may get even more burdensome information with the test results. I think that, while it is important to give these companies incentives to do the research they are doing, they should not have sole property rights on their discoveries. A compromise would be best suited for this situation. Such compromises could include: 1) exclusive rights to the genetic testing for a year, 2) have a licensing fee for other companies who would like to test for the gene, 3) for every genetic test done for a specific gene, the company who discovered it will get a piece of the profit… ect. This way, the “discovery company” does not have a patent on the gene, others can use the gene for research and testing, and consumers can compare prices for genetic testing. Of course one company should not have a monopoly on the testing and research of a particular gene. The more companies looking for the causes and cures for diseases, the better! Unfortunately in today’s world, many people care much more about making money than they do about helping others. Money is what drives our society, but at the cost of saving lives?
ReplyDeleteI understand both sides of the issue from the researcher’s and patient’s perspectives. The main issue with the research side of the debate is the ability to profit from their discovery, which takes time, resource, and money in order to produce. If there were no patents to certain tests, there would be no economic incentive for geneticists and researchers to discover new tests. Although researchers do not own the human genetic sequence, they may argue that the special techniques used to detect or isolate variations or mutations of interest is a rationale for patenting.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, if the Supreme Court legitimizes genetic patents in the US, it may hinder scientific process because other research companies are not allowed to use patented discoveries. Due to the lack of competition, there can be no comparisons or evaluations to check on the patented test. How can we prove the legitimacy or the quality of a test if researchers are not able to make comparisons? In addition, what if the gene in questions produced other effects previously undiscovered? New discoveries will be slow to arrive because it is in the best economic interest of research and testing companies to milk the profits of their patent, rather than to move on and discover something new.
Lastly, research companies seem to forget that research is done in order to improve current treatments and to promote personalized medicine. Instead, these patents would only serve to promote health disparities between people who can afford the prices of the monopolized tests and those who cannot. If patents were eliminated, the monopoly on genetic testing may be eliminated and promote free competition, possibly resulting in lowered costs.
I agree with almost everyone else that has already commented on this post. Patenting genes is completely ridiculous. We are supposed to be focusing on working together to fight against many diseases that claim the lives of millions of people each year instead of just focusing on competition to make the most money while those affected are suffering. Stopping other companies from working on the genes that they discovered is hurting our society instead of helping. I know many people already mentioned this, but I'm thinking about Myriad Genetics and their claim on the BRCA genes. I remember the main character from "In the Family" trying to talk to one of the men from the company who was shutting down all her questions. When she finally asked why the testing was so expensive and how it should be cheaper, the man had no response. From a research perspective it would be frustrating knowing that there is nothing that you can do to to work on a gene because a specific company has patented a gene. From a patient's perspective, it would also be frustrating knowing that there are no options and you have to rely on this one specific company for all the information and testing for a gene. Overall, patenting a gene is not a good idea. It is just promoting the idea of doing anything possible, even at the cost of others' lives, just for money.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic that can be debated at length, and I can definitely understand why. There is a disconnect between the economic incentives and the original public health purposes. But, I am in favor of a Supreme Court ruling against genetic patents. I say this because, like Simon Sinek says in this TED Talk (http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html), those who are motivated for the right reasons will work until they make their discovery and then keep working to make their discoveries better and more innovative. They are not motivated by economic incentives or promise of fame. These people do exist--Sinek points to the Wright Brothers in his talk.
ReplyDeleteMotivation is key in this debate--are enough people intrinsically motivated?
Oops--I'm not trying to post anonymously--I'm Molly Binger.
DeleteI believe that most things in this world run like a business. There are fewer relationships and more transactions among groups of people. It’s the way the world works because it provides a person with an incentive to do something. The article mentioned that people want patents on genes because it serves as an incentive. I agree and I understand why a company would want to have a patent on a gene. Myriad has a patent on BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 and so, they have a monopoly on those genes. They have great profits because since they are the only ones that can screen for the genes, they have no competition and can charge whatever they want and people have no other option, at least not legally. So for business, having a patent on a gene is great and from the business point of view, it is understandable. But, as a future public health practitioner, I don’t think that patents on genes should be allowed. The purpose of doing research and trying to link genes to diseases and finding ways to detect diseases as early as possible is to be able to better the lives of the public by being able to diagnose diseases at a earlier stage and provide treatment when necessary. Patent on genes seem to defeat the purpose because only a selected few have access to those resources, which is unfair.
ReplyDeleteI also think that those who opt to get tested should have access to all of the results without being denied any information. After all, it is their genes and they probably got tested because they want to know know all there is to know (some patients may have a limit as to what they want to know and that is fine and should be respected). So, I don’t think a company should have the right to disclose or deny disclosure of information about the variations in their genes. But then again, in certain cases not knowing certain things is better especially if its something that the patient can’t do anything about. Nonetheless, it should be up to the patient to decide what he or she wants to know.
Another thing is that I don’t think one company should have the ability to stop other companies from working on their claimed genes. I think that if everyone had a chance to work on all genes on their own, we would probably get better results. There are many brilliant scientists out there who might be able to bring new eyes and discover new things if only they were able to do so. I think everyone should be able to study and research all of the genes because that way we might have a better chance at coming up with beneficial discoveries and be able to provide better services at a public health level.
Biotech companies should not have the right to patent genes or claim the right to a patient's DNA. I agree that they should be able to patent their new invention in the sense that if they discovered that this specific gene is held responsible for a specific phenotype, mutation, or disease, then that company should get the credit for discovering it and that whatever genetic test they develop to test for this gene, they should have the right to claim that genetic test. However, they can't claim someone's DNA information. They shouldn't have the right to claim and in turn, to deny the right to disclose to patients specific information about variations in "their" genes that they discover; only the genetic test itself that they developed for that gene they discovered. I would give credit to that company for their discovery, but they can't patent genes because this genetic information seems very personal to me and if companies are allowed to patient an individual's DNA, it seems to be a violation of personal and property rights.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding whether they should have the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes, I feel like that's kind of a hard question to answer because without other companies competing or trying to develop a better genetic test for that gene, we will never had improvement or better technology to do genetic testing, but at the same time, you do want to give credit to that biotech company that did discover the gene first. I don't know if I would give companies the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes just because as a consumer, I would like to have better technology and even greater discoveries one day about that gene or other genes that may have been "claimed." As a researcher and patient, you would definitely not want companies to be able to "claim" the genes and not allow other companies to work on it because you would want more discoveries about genes. The only good outcome I could see from companies being able to patent genes and "claim" them is from a businessman's view, it would allow them to make more money. But in general, I don't agree that companies should have the right to claim a person's gene just because they discovered the gene and companies shouldn't have the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes.
I am completely against companies being able to have patents on gene test and DNA. This is the health field where the goal is supposed to be making strides for humanities health and to do research and make discoveries to better the common man. Obviously this is idealist and unrealistic but it shouldn't be forgotten. Companies can not have a monopoly on gene test, especially important ones like the BRCA gene that Myriad Genetics controls. How are prices expected to drop without competition? From the caring hearts of the researchers at Myriad? You have more luck trying to survive ten minutes while swimming in a volcano. Don't expect these scientist to lower cost while they are the only ones who can make money off this. This BRCA test is important for many people and can change many lives. Important test like these should be cheap and readily available to the public, not held hostage by greedy scientist. As to the issue of owning DNA. Well I will cite that amendment that abolished slavery and using people as property and rest my case.
ReplyDeleteI, as many of my other fellow classmates, also feel that Biotech companies should not be allowed to patent genes, but should be able to patent the technology able to find a specific gene. During the film "In The Family" a challenge was put on the company patenting the BRCA1 gene and stating how it isn't fair that the technology and sequencing of the DNA has only been increasing in price. Although there have been strides to bring it down into the lower thousands it is still a way for private companies to profit on something that may not even be ethically relevant in some cases. Playing devil's advocate, I can almost tie this back into facebook, twitter and Instagram with their privacy settings. We put up our pictures on the world wide web and for all of the world to see and if we use a biotech company who are we to say that they shouldn't be allowed to use that information for research or grant proposals in order to effectively screen and make costs more attainable. It's difficult when ethical issues come up in a business such as this. What public health strategists need to attack are the pharmaceutical companies and the branding of what is needed and what is just a suggestion. All of these genetic screenings are not mandatory, but one day they might be and that is when this ethical issue might arise at a higher degree.
ReplyDeleteWhen reading through my classmates' responses, Erica Cueva's opening statement rung very true to me: "I believe that most things in this world run like a business. There are fewer relationships and more transactions among groups of people." This article highlights the sad reality businesses will seize any opportunity to profit, regardless of ethical or moral standards.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion, like virtually all of my classmates above me, is that patenting genes is wrong, and should not be allowed. The notion of patenting a gene, and allowing that one company exclusive rights to perform tests is virtually undoing all the good that the Human Genome Project worked tirelessly to uncover; the Genome Project was the utmost example of collaboration for a better of understanding of science as a whole, as the researchers made their research available on the internet for all to explore and learn. With the Human Genome Project now complete, if this current trend of patenting genes continues, all that work will be undone, and gene science will belong to the select few companies who race to issue their patents, stopping others from working to improve the science of the test or the gene's implications.
A step beyond the patents though, is this new notion that these companies can now claim or deny the right to disclose to patients specific information about variations in "their" genes that they discovered. As the article mentioned, the way the gene scans work is that they look for specific variations; these variations may or may not have any meaning at all; it is possible that a variation in the gene sequence may exist, but it may not change the function of the protein it encodes - this information is not analyzed, it is merely spat out at the consumer, who, without any previous education in genetics, may freak out and think there might be something terribly wrong. On the flip side, if the gene status is a definite point of interest for the consumer, it seems very wrong for the companies to deny this person their results; the only way I can imagine this situation to unfold is that the company would place an additional charge on the consumer looking for their results. Regardless, this all seems wrong to me.
If companies with patented genes have the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes, this outcome, like I mentioned above, would slow genetics research tremendously or stop it all together. Science is a collaborative discipline, with new discoveries only coming from tedious research tried and tried again. With gene patents, genome scans will no longer be a science with a discovery component attached; with patents it will no longer be a science that can be improved upon; it will become a commodity, something else to "add to cart" and "check out" on the internet, with merely a credit card number separating you from your "genetic identity," an imperfect science practically useless in this stage of development.
In my opinion, patenting a gene or any other biological process is not ethical. Through patents, certain companies can have monopolies, keeping others from using or researching their “claimed” genes. This is evident with Myriad and their patent on the BRCA gene. The company can determine the price of BRCA testing, knowing that they will have no other competition. Because of this, they can keep prices high while still having a large demand. This restricts other companies from developing testing on this gene, and thus, gives consumers only one choice. Ultimately, being able to patent a gene sets a precedent for future companies. Newly found genes may be able to be patented and claimed by companies, causing more monopolies for certain companies. Technically, if the company owns a gene, they legally have the right to keep others from working on their “claimed” genes. Despite this fact, I do not believe it is fair and it ultimately restricts science from evolving since only a few people are able to work on certain patented genes.
ReplyDeleteFrom class, most of us know the issues with Myriad’s BRCA patent. There have been other issues with biological patents in the past as well. One example is when a UCLA physician patented a cell line from John Moore, one of his cancer patients. The physician took Moore’s cells without permission, and transformed them, patented them, and used them as a research tool. The cell line is only licensed to a few companies, allowing the physician to make large sums of money. In the link below, the case is discussed, specifically explaining how this is a prime example of patent owners restricting others of using their items, primarily to keep their incomes high. Allowing biological materials to be patented is dangerous to the future of science, especially if more things become "claimed" by individuals.
“Ownership of Human Tissue: Life after Moore vs. Regents of the University of California” by Jennifer Lavoie
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1073130
After reading the Supreme Court case brought against Myriad Genetics by the Association for Molecular Pathology, I came to the conclusion that is a much simpler dispute than I realized. The central problems of this case are not based on the issue of patenting or about protecting an individuals identity for morality reasons, but it is rather revolved around the reoccurring theme of money. In the year of 1996, Myriad was granted the right to patent the BRCA1 and BRCA2 for genetic cancer testing. Since this time, a number of new genetic testing labs have opened up, making the industry for genetic testing much more common, but leaving these labs with a strict criteria on the limited numbers of mutations that they are permitted to test for. The only reason for this limitation is because Myriad Genetics has complete control over how much they choose to charge for the genetic test since they are the only ones offering it. I do not think this should be allowed because the genetic test would have never been discovered if people had not given abundant donations to scientific research, and it seems like an extreme contradiction, not to mention an abuse of power, to prevent access to such a test because someone may not have the financial resources to pay the difference in the over-inflated price. From a patient perspective, I find it immoral to sacrifice genetic testing in order to make a bigger profit. It is bad enough that the U.S. education system has become more interested in its success as a business more than an learning tool. It should not, under any circumstances, be permissible for businesses to sacrifice our health to further monopolize profits for their company.
ReplyDeleteFrom a research perspective, these restrictions on patenting "their" genes would prevent future research from being conducted, considering you need the mutated DNA itself to work with further. This counteracts the entire method done to make the discovery in the first place. A discovery does not come from one scientist. It has taken thousands of generations of researchers to get to where we are now, and if we limit this to one lab, we are limiting our ability to move forward.
The only good outcome I can possibly think of that might result as we put limitations on testing are the accuracy of the results. For example, there are a wide variety of pregnancy tests at CVS. Some are less expensive and may have less accurate or unclear results that are hard to read. Other tests are more expensive with a very clear "yes" or "no" answer. Similarly, if only one lab is allowed the rights for testing for the genetic mutation, it will be very likely that all results are precise, accurate and truthful. This would prevent other companies from scam testing and giving inaccurate results for a lower fee.
Overall, I agree with the plaintiffs in the court case against Myriad Genetics, and I believe that the Supreme Court will make the same conclusion when it is expected to read its verdict in June of this year.
Forgot to include my source from where I read the official Supreme Court case: http://pathologyblawg.com/pathology-news/pathology-vendors/myriad-genetics/supreme-court-hear-myriad-genetics-brca-gene-patent-case/
DeleteThere are many unanswered questions regarding the field of genomics and genetic testing since it is such a new field. I believe that biotech companies do have a right to profit from their research, because as many have stated, there is no practical incentive for the biotech company workers to perform their job, because as great as it would be for them to perform the work out of the kindness of their hearts, this just isn't realistic. However, I do not believe that this gives the companies the right to patent certain genes. This seems absurd to me because not only would it limit the amount of research that could be done if only one company could research on a gene, but it seems extreme for companies to just start claiming certain genes, genes that are for the most part present in each person. Therefore, what would give one company the right to a gene over another? What to me seems to be the most logical solution is for companies to be able to patent techniques and genetic equipment, since those are things that the specific company created, which to the knowledge of the public, had not been created previously. Therefore, I do not think a company could deny another company from researching on a particular gene, but they could deny them certain equipment if they have a patent on it.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, I do not think a company has the right to refuse to give information to the people whose genes they are working on. If in their research, they discover something that may pose a problem, I feel that they have the ethical obligation to inform them. The point of genetic research is to improve the health of people, and to deny someone information potentially pertinent to their health seems counterintuitive. In addition, it seems only right to help the person whose genes were donated, since the work being done would not be carried out unless it were for that person who donated their genes in the first place.
It is unrealistic to say that patenting genes is not something that is necessary for a company to do. A company that performs research and discovers a new breakthrough needs to find a way to make a profit and somehow sustain themselves. However with that said, patents should not cause the inability for researchers, patients, and clinicians to implement effective care. In the case of Myriad genetics with the exorbitant amount of money that others had to pay in order to use the gene, in this case a patent needs to be regulated by a federal health institution. With certain goods and resources if an item is being priced too highly the government has the ability to set a price cap on the item, thus a company cannot sell the good for a price higher than that but they are still able to make a profit. This idea can be implemented on organizations such as Myriad thus they are still able to make money and researchers can have access to their genes. In “In the Family” the main problem that the protagonist had with Myriad was the increasing costs of the patent for no apparent reason. I think government regulated pricing will allow both sides of the party to benefit.
ReplyDeleteThere were many arguments that I had to consider when trying to decipher my opinion on gene patenting. Eventually, I came to a personal conclusion that the main reason that I am not in support of gene patenting is because I believe that it will hamper new discoveries from taking place (specifically in terms of research). Once one company has patented a gene, they have a monopoly over that gene. Therefore, other companies may be discouraged from researching that gene. If patenting of genes music continue, I do believe that there cannot be restrictions put on other It is because of this reason that I believe companies should not be restricted from researching a gene that may be patented.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me think about the In The Family film, I tried not to be biased because of the Myriad interview but I couldn’t help it. So I think that it had a lot to do with my first opinion on patenting a gene, that it’s a bad idea and very selfish. What this article states is that companies have the right to profit from new discovers, technologies, mimics, copies, and isolated fragments of the natural DNA that are used for research, and genetic testing, but what the question is if it’s right to disclose information from patients. I would have to disagree with both, that they are both not right. Stopping other companies from using “their” genes will leave research at a final stand still in certain aspects. Researchers can’t further explore these genes therefore it makes it not able to make even more discoveries possible and questions to be answered. Companies aside, I believe that it is very unethical to disclose information from patients, especially if it will benefit their health.
ReplyDeleteThe good outcomes for the researchers are of course the profitable benefits from patents; they can monopolize and claim that it’s theirs. The bad outcomes for them are being attacked all the time about the patent and for me personally if I were in their shoes, it would be the guilt I would feel. For patients it’s a relief that these researchers have made it possible to give them a diagnosis, preventative measures, and way to fix their disorder, disease, mutation, etc. However, this can also be bad in the availability of testing or techniques because of cost or limitations.
Intellectual property should be entitled to the same protection that physical property should be. The capitalistic nature of scientific development utilizes financial incentive to drive progression as such without patent law there would be no incentive to invest in new ideas, ultimately hindering progress. Medical patents are unique in that their products are potentially vital to patients and as such the ethical implications associated with patents should be examined more closely. While companies are entitled to protect their investment they should not do it at the cost of the consumer, especially if the ultimate cost is the life/health of the patient. Regarding “working on claimed genes” companies should not reappropriate patent law to infringe on further research. Research should be expected to improve on the existing knowledge. The bad outcomes would obviously be companies such as Myriad monopolizing a market. In the absence of competition there would be no regulation of testing costs and therefore the company could exploit the consumer’s need to increase profits. Assuming insurance paid for this testing they would likely pass the cost down to the consumer in one way or another, otherwise the patient would have to pay out of pocket.
ReplyDeleteOut of all the things dealing with Genetics/Genomics that I have come across during this course, this topic has probably sparked the most attention from me. I think the idea of "owning" genes or patenting them is absolutely ridiculous. When watching the movie about the BRCA1/2 genetic mutation with Joanna, I thought the man who patented the gene for his company was rude, arrogant, and dismissive. Not one thing that he said to justify him patenting the test for this genetic mutation made sense. Joanna made some very good points that I agree with fully: that it doesn't seem right to own something that occurs in nature, and that thousands of women out there are not getting tested because it is not convenient for them, especially financially with the cost of the test just rising (even though he said it would go down not up).
ReplyDeleteI think that owning genetic material is ethically wrong. Some people may not agree, but it to me, owning genetic material is like saying someone has the right to my left arm: it's my body, my genetic material, and I don't believe anyone has the "right" to that except myself. Beyond the ethics, I think that patenting genes or tests for genetic abnormalities is counterproductive to the idea of prevention of medical problems and the bettering of people's lives.If the test exists, it should be as widely accessible to the population as possible, making it as useful as possible. I think it shows the American culture behind it all when companies are rushing to get the patent in order to make the most money. I don't think that is the right direction we should be going in.
I definitely don’t think that companies should be able to patent certain genes and then claim or deny the right to disclose to patients certain information about their own health. Even if a company discovers a gene, it is unethical to make a profit off of human gene variations. I believe that all information having to do with human genetics should be shared and open to the public. People should have the right to know what genes and variations they possess because they are the true owners. All patients should be able to know about their genes without companies denying them this information. I think that this practice has negative outcomes for o=both the patient and the research in the genetic field. Patients will be harmed if they cannot get all of the information that they need and the field of genetics as a whole will suffer because information is being kept private.
ReplyDeleteI also do not think that companies with patented genes should have the right to stop other companies from working on their claimed genes. All scientific research should be collaborative in order to discover the most accurate information. By patenting genes, companies may not be getting all of the information that could be discovered if more than one company were working to find the best outcome. I think that companies should receive credit for finding the gene, but I don’t think any harm can come from multiple companies working together in an organized, professional manner. I understand the business aspect of these companies but isn’t the goal of the health field to share knowledge in order to improve the overall health of mankind?
The main issue I have with gene patenting is that it is impeding the research for discoveries in diagnostic and therapeutic avenues in medicine. Honestly, I think the fact that these biotechnology companies can patent genes and monopolize the genetic testing of that gene needs to be addressed publicly. Maybe some sort of vote should be in order? In a field like medicine where main goal has been and always will be to maximize the health of people, it seems a bit ironic to deter research and possibly delay treatments for diseases. This sort of a business model of optimizing profit for biotech companies can not be dropped on the medical field and expected to match in framework. The two deal with completely separate issues, one with advancing the equality and effectiveness of healthcare and one with turning a profit. I think the public should be fighting this because with the patenting of genes and biotech companies not allowing other companies to invest research in the same gene it is creating a non-competitive market, in which prices in servicing the public will never be decreased.
ReplyDeleteI understand that patenting certain ideas and products can bring the ability to gain profit from them, however when it comes to DNA gene sequencing I don't think that companies should be able to put a patent on their new discoveries based on a persons DNA in the lab. It even says in the article: "Simple discoveries and naturally occurring material, including chemicals, cannot be patented. This, of course, includes human DNA". I think there are various moral and ethical issue that need to be addressed when they say that it is okay for companies to patent the copies/mimics of a gene sequence if it will help in new developments or discoveries. For example, there needs to be consent and full disclosure for specific information that the person (whose DNA was used).
ReplyDeleteI am not sure whether companies should be allowed to stop other companies from working on their 'claimed' genes. I see both sides of the issue. If any company is allowed to patent a gene sequence for the purpose of making a profit, then just like any other patent, another company shouldn't be allowed to use utilize the same exact materials. This idea is difficult because we are advancing in the world of gene sequencing and constantly coming up with new discoveries. For me it brings up the questions of, 'What is our goal? Are different companies concerned about competing to find the newest discoveries about gene sequencing? Or are we looking to work together to advance the world?'
The fact that it is even legal for companies to patent certain tests for genes scares me. If the whole point of doing these tests is to save many more lives and prevent as many disease outcomes as possible, how can we limit where the tests can be performed? I feel like the obvious reason as to why patents exist is because the company that invented the genetic test profits the most, because everyone will have to go through them to get their results. it seems completely contradictory to me that a company that claims to be doing something to save lives can be so driven on increasing profits over making the test more easily accessible to the population. This means that patients will either have to go to the company with the patent (which may be very inconveniently far) or their specimens will have to be sent long distances. This increases the chance for damage of the specimen or mistakes to be made along the way. Patents also allow the companies to jack up the prices as high as they wish, which is not in the patient's best interest.
ReplyDeleteI also think it's completely wrong for a company to have the power to decide what to do with the information on patients' results pertaining to what they claim are "their" genes. The genes belong to the person that they came from, not to the person who is examining them. If there is something that a patient needs to know regarding their genes, I think they have every right to know it without having to travel far distances, pay high prices, and go through this entire inconvenient process. If these companies really did have the patient's best interest in mind, they would make these tests freely available, so people could be aware of their health and take the necessary steps to getting healthier.
ReplyDeleteMy father is a patent and trademark attorney, so I engaged him in a discussion about this topic. I found his response to be quite complex because he was able to formulate two contrasting arguments, depending upon the varying interpretation of just a handful of words included in legal clauses. The definition of “gene” does not inherently imply it is inseparable part of an individual, but rather could imply its just its chemical structure which could be artificially synthesized. Discoveries of chemical structures and organic compounds are regularly patented without controversy, so the crux of this debate lies in the interpretation or definition of scientific concepts. This debate illuminates the failure of our legal systems to keep pace with rapidly developing scientific advances.
I believe that biotech companies are exploiting loopholes in patent laws, a direct result of the legal system’s outdated comprehension of modern biotechnology. Such a loophole is described in the assigned article, “With most natural products, companies can patent specially developed methods to isolate the material or synthesize it in the lab. Genes are bit unique though. Since companies cannot own the natural sequence of our genes outright, they claim rights to the mimics, copies, and isolated fragments of the natural DNA that are used for research and genetic testing.” I believe that this exploitation is not only harmful to individual patient health or to population health at large, but is also detrimental to the advancement of other scientific discovery.
The topic of gene patents immediately recalls to my memory the documentary we watched earlier this semester, “In The Family.” The movie had a profound emotional impact on me for personal reasons as well as a because I d hope to pursue a career as a women’s health physician in the future. Therefore, I found the discussion of Myriad Genetics and the patent of the BRACA 1 and 2 genetic testing to be extremely disturbing. The public health implications of such patents were made extremely evident throughout the movie, such as when a physician in a community health center explained the lack of availability for screening tests due to the monopoly-induced high prices. I was further outraged when the confronted the CEO of Myriad Genetics was confronted about the high cost, and gave no legitimate consideration to the issue, merely stating, “It was something they should work on."
I believe that a patent on any gene is an infringement on individual's natural rights, a disservice to the scientific community and pure exploitation. I understand that research and scientific discovery is extremely expensive, and therefore believe that the company has a right to get a return on its investment. However, I believe that the return has far outweighed the investment in this instance and the high cost is putting profit before people's lives.
As most students have mentioned before me, I do not believe it is right to patent a gene. I am actually still pretty confused about how a company can patent a naturally occurring thing like DNA in the first place and what having a patent brings them. I understand that these companies work hard in their research and want to gain some benefit from it, but patenting genes can prevent other companies from doing anything with it. This can reduce the potential to further the research and find new treatments and interventions for it. It ends up being a race about who can get to the DNA first. Patenting, therefore, not only has adverse effects on research, but on patients as well, since their potential of managing their genes becomes limited. It can also be risky for the patient because a company can easily lie to them about their genotype. The patient does not have many options to help them decide if the company results are valid or not because they wouldn’t be able to access information from other companies. Furthermore, they would not be able to get tested for the genotype anywhere besides with the company which, as others have mentioned, becomes very inconvenient and unfair. I feel like ultimately, the only person has a right over someone’s DNA is the person him/herself. It is what they are born with and a company cannot just come in and have claims over this because they were able to sequence portions of the genotype. I think that creating patents for DNA takes away the main reason why research is being done, which is to help public health, and just becomes a selfish strive to gain fame.
ReplyDeleteI think as public health leaning students, we as a group tend to have an unfavorable opinion of patents. Patents originated from the idea of rewarding research and innovation, a mechanism that would push researchers to work harder and better to improve our health (or any other area in which patents are used). Today, patents are more of a barrier in healthcare. They make it difficult for patients to get the drugs and tests they need, because the companies behind the products are looking at the bottom line: make a profit. I think patenting genes is particularly unsavory because no one company "created" the gene sequence, it exists in all of us; however, companies (such as Myriad) seem to claim that they have a right to that aspect of ourselves- that gene sequence which may or may not exist within us.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a bit dangerous to have companies in charge of specific information they have found out about us- yet we do this all the time in ways we don't realize, specifically online. We put in our names, emails, phone numbers, credit card information, and those companies use all sorts of information (such as browsing history) to learn about us, and to develop their products and their services, which may be more damaging than a company's sequencing of our DNA. Yet, the thing about companies holding our DNA (and claiming rights to deny or disclose information) is that we don't know what it may mean about us, our health, or our futures. It becomes as if the companies are toying with our health in order to make a profit (whereas online, the situation is a bit different).
In terms of patent law, it makes sense for a company to sue another for intruding on its intellectual property; however, the ironic thing about Myriad is that it used information found by a different scientist in order to gain the upper hand. Now, they refuse to let anyone else benefit from their research (and continue to increase prices). Because this concerns public health, patents should be treated differently. There has to be a solution so that companies continue to expand their research (a benefit of patenting) but not at the cost of patients' wallets, because in the end, the aim of public health is for equity in health, not superior health for a few.
Because they are companies, I see no reason why biotech industries cannot hold a patent on a particular type of test or treatment. I think it’s silly to believe that they shouldn’t. The time they put into developing these tests and treatments is valuable and they should be reimbursed as such. There’s no problem with charging other companies if they wish to use these tests or treatments, or holding a monopoly on it altogether. THAT BEING SAID, I do NOT at all endorse them holding a patent on a gene. This, I feel, is asinine and it will lead to extreme complications regarding what the person is to do. The company now basically owns your genes, and they may withhold information or treatment about it, and it’s just not right. People’s genes weren’t created by man, and no one has the right to claim them except that person, whether you “discover” a mutation or not. I think we can all agree that it’s also something the general public is appalled at, when a company goes on film and states that they own a gene, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. This is definitely an issue that needs to be explored in the law, and a decision ought to be made, and made to be very clear, so companies and people understand what is going on, because right now it is very confusing and upsetting to think that a company can do this.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWhen considering my opinion on patenting genes, I had to consider how patents effect various groups of people such as scientists, consumers, and those working for the companies behind the patents. I have come to the conclusion that I do not support the patenting of genes because I feel patents can only do harm in the long term. I would agree with my classmate Ernesto that "patenting genes is an unethical practice of manipulating the use of high quality technology and business to profit on natural occurrences and human variation" I feel Ernesto makes a great point that patenting genes is unethical, and feel this stems from the fact that it is done for the sole reason of financial benefit. Overall, I feel that biotech companies calling for patents on individual genes harm the our population and lessen the possibility of scientific advancement in the understanding of the nature of a gene.
I strongly disagree that companies should be able to claim the right (and deny the right) to disclose specific information about variations in genes that they discover. I feel that people who choose to be tested should have access to all the results without being denied any information from companies. I also sternly feel that companies should be praised and compensated for their discoveries, but should not be able to keep other researchers from studying their gene discoveries more in depth.
This blog post makes me think back to the movie we watched earlier this semester about the BRACA gene and Myriad Genetics role in its patenting. The movie illustrated the harmful effects of the patent as the price of screening for the gene remained extremely expensive and was not justified by the company. As evident in the film, gene patents promote health disparities between consumers who can afford screening and those who cannot due to the monopolization of prices. If patents ceased to exist, prices for screening would be lowered promoting benefits to all parties involved.
My opinion on patenting genes is mixed but mostly negative. It seems that when a major scientific discovery is made that could lead to curing or learning more about a certain disease or illness that this research should be made public and not restricted to someone with a patent. On the other hand, when a gene can be patented there can be more motivation for a lab or company to pour money into doing more research, since they know they are the only source that people can come to for a certain genetic test, for example BRCA genes. There may be less of a motivation to put money into these genes if it is unknown if the people putting the time, money, and resources into doing so will see a fiscal return. As we saw in the documentary “In the Family,” the breast cancer BRCA genes are patented by a lab. We learned that this test is more expensive, probably because of this, and is not looking like the cost will decrease anytime soon. This makes sense because there is nowhere else people can go to get this genetic test, so they can keep costs high and not worry about competitor rates, as they may have to if there was not a patent and multiple labs could run this test. Overall, I think that genes should not be able to be patented.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it should not be legal for a company to patent genes because the success of scientific research hinges on competition. Although these companies such as Myriad and others may be cashing in big time, they are doing a great disservice to the people who actually have mutations of the genes they have patented. With the ability of many companies to work with a certain gene instead of just one company, the possibilities of successful research are exponentially greater.
ReplyDeleteIt does not seem like there are any good outcomes from patenting for the people who have the actual genetic mutation. The only good outcomes come in the form of profit for the company and it is unfortunate that it has to be like this. With the addition of other perspectives to certain issues the possibilities of advancement are endless and this is why I do not agree with gene patenting.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with gene patenting. Giving companies the right to patent genes allows them to control a genetic variation that is a naturally occurring thing found in the human body. This can lead down a slippery slope. Companies could start patenting illnesses and specific tests for them, as long as the symptoms are a little different than those that already exist. Using their patents, companies could claim the right (and, in turn, deny the right) to disclose to patients specific information about variations in "their" genes that they discovered. If a company does not have the patent on a specific variation, then it cannot tell patients if a variation was found elsewhere, since a patent exists for it with another company. I don't think companies with patented genes should have the right to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes. This right only benefits the company with the patent, not patients or future research. Patients have to get tested for a specific gene only through that company. If they need or want to know more about their genes, they have to send a sample to different labs, which can lead to a great chance of it being lost or misused. The less people who can work on something, the longer it will take for progress to be made. The BRCA cancer genes could lead us to a cure one day, but if only one company has the patent over it, then only that company decides what to do with it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of my fellow classmates so I apologize for being repetitive. On one hand I can understand the argument companies such as Myriad make concerning gene testing methods. They discovered the usefulness of the BRCA genes and therefore should not have to share the information. On the other hand, having these genes can be a matter of life and death. Myriad's take on gene testing is while a great business model, cannot and should not be applied to healthcare. Therefore I agree with the later reasoning that genes should not be patented. Their motivation should be to help society but instead it is fueled be greed. I think that the whole concept of someone else other than you owning your genes could lead to other outrageous things. If your genes are not “your” genes, then whose are they? It is very unsettling to me that a group of people that I have never met have control over something that naturally makes up who I am as a human being. So again to reiterate, I can see the argument for companies who patent a certain gene they discovered, but morally they should not.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to patents on genes, I am really quite conflicted. Like most of my other classmates who have already commented on this blog, the idea of patenting human genes – that occur naturally and belong to the person – is perplexing and I have a difficult time accepting it. Yet on the other hand, I understand – to an extent – the need for companies and researchers to protect and receive due credit for their findings. The issue that many of us have with gene patenting is the ultimate effect it has on patients and health care: the incredible costs of the genetic test (e.g. $3000 for the BRCA1/BRCA 2 genetic test) that ultimately affect access and use.
ReplyDeleteSheba introduced the idea of government intervention/involvement by enforcing price caps and other forms of regulation. I don't know that this is a perfect solution, but it's a start. Some form of regulation and an intermediary are much needed at this point when advancements in biotechnology are continuously made. In some ways I think that current legal practices and things like patents aren't entirely applicable to developments now being made in technology/biotechnology, especially with things that are naturally occurring. Perhaps a variation or new form of patents and patent laws can protect the time, effort, and resources that went into a discovery, without completely laying claims, inhibiting further research and applications, and preventing patients/consumers from accessing their own information. It might also be necessary to reassess the terminology we use – rather than having GENE patents, we can specify what exactly is being patented.
I do not think that companies should be allowed to patent genes. Patents are for things that are invented. These scientist and companies did not invent genes therefore they have no right to ownership. This reminds me of the video that we watched in class about the BRCA gene test. Miriad Labs did not come up with the BRCA gene and should not be the only ones allowed to test for it. This ownership creates not only a monopoly but also decreasesthe availability of testing to those who cannot afford it. When people are discriminated against because of their finances from not only treatmentbut also diagnosis, things need to change. My genes belong to me. Although others have the resources and technology to identify and seperate them at the end of it all they are encoded.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think genes should be patented because it hinders the possible progress that other companies and test centers may have. Myriad claims the testing rights for the BRCA genes, but what if another company who ran tests could potentially lose a discovery? It seems like the techniques used by all testing centers and companies used falls under standard procedures. So why is it that they feel the need to turn human genes into property? That’s like putting a price on someone’s life. Rare genes found could deem people worth by these companies if patents were placed on all genes. Patents only result in competition, and competition would cause stratification.
ReplyDeleteEthically I don’t believe it is right to deny the right to disclose specific information that may benefit a company. After all, the genes should be considered the property of the individual, because without the individual they would not exist.
I think for the researcher, claiming genes, as property may be beneficial in the sense that it could push them, with monetary compensation, to further their progress in discovering variations in the genes. However, I do think this would again cause researchers to not want to disclose information fearing it may get into the wrong hands and they may lose their payment opportunity. I think this would be detrimental to the public, because as I said, it would end up putting a value on people. Rare genes would be prized, while people with common genes would be deemed less than extraordinary.
I don’t think that companies should be able to patent genes. It’s one thing to patent a method of genetic testing, but to patent an actual gene is unethical in my opinion. Genes are very personal; after all they are what make up a person’s identity. Therefore, companies shouldn’t be able to patent genes as if they own the person whose gene they wish to patent. It’s like if they wanted to own someone’s fingerprints, which would also be wrong. I think that if a company wanted to patent a gene to receive accreditation, they’d need to get permission from the person.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I also don’t think it its right that companies withhold information about variations in a person’s genes they discover. When it regards someone’s personal identity, that person deserves to know any genetic results that are found. For example, it would be selfish to not tell someone if they were at risk of a disease, just because a company was trying to use the information to make profits off of it.
As I already mentioned, while I do not think patenting genes are okay, I do think that patenting a method of genetic testing is okay. In terms of research perspectives, that would be a way that a company is accredited for their findings and at the same time, other companies can come up with new methods. If genes were patented and other companies couldn’t work on them, that would hinder research, new discoveries, and competition. When competition is hindered, healthcare costs rises. It would hinder competition because companies wouldn’t be able to work on the same genes and make new discoveries. Therefore, I think genes shouldn’t be patented. However, companies that work on a gene should definitely get permission first from the person who genes it is. At all, they are the real owner of the genes.
Personally, I understand that without the prospects of the outcome of the research being profitable, testing or genetic identification would not be developed as soon or as eagerly as it is because in reality, people strive from profit. However, although it is true and it is the reality that research and development that has to be done to identify certain genes are very expensive and time consuming. I agree with the article stating, “The right to profit from new discoveries and technology is the logic behind patents, and the basis of a free-market approach to innovation”. With that statement, I believe that companies should not have the right to claim or in turn deny the right to disclose to patients specific information about variations in genes that are discovered, especially due to financial reasons. The fact that some circumstances are in the matter of life and death adds more to the reason on why this test should be available to everyone. Additionally, I do not think that companies with patented genes should have the right to stop other companies. Going back to Myriad, it can be seen that because of their patent on the BRCA cancer gene, they are monopolizing in this market and that puts other companies and also patients seeking to receive this test in an unfair situation.
ReplyDeleteWith this situation, the negative definitely out weighs the positive. The only positive that I can think of is definitely the fact that due to the monopoly Myriad has, it has acquired more profit causing the company to thrive. The negatives, however, affect millions of people who can’t afford to take the test and disables people from seeking multiple sources of care for their health concerns.
As the article states, the logic behind patents is the right to profit from new discoveries and technology. However, the logic behind genetic testing is to identify if the genome can predict if a person might develop a disease or respond to a treatment. Patents will slow the widespread distribution of new genetic tests, meaning less people will have the advantage of knowing if they have a disease. Patents increase individual companies since they prohibit other companies to produce their product. Since companies invest to develop medical tests, they do deserve profit for their findings. I feel they should earn profit not through patents but maybe through multiple partnerships with other companies. The initial company would gain the most profit for discovering the specific way to test the variations of the genome. It would also extend the product to more companies and as a result, more people. Companies can claim or deny the right to their discoveries, but I do not feel they should. Patents will create more competitive companies, as opposed to research companies that should be working together to gain the most knowledge.
ReplyDeleteMy inital impression of gene patenting early into the class, specifically of Myriad Genetics owning the rights to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, was that this act was wrong. The reason being essentially what the article claims, that naturally occurring chemicals are discovered, and not created by a single company. Also, owning the rights to this natural material only prevents other discoveries in technology and medicine from being made. However, I understand the argument that companies have developed tests and methods of isolation for these genes. Their investment may ensure that people are receiving reliable information about certain genes, and that the research dealing with their genes (or techniques) is being used properly and ethically. In a sense, it may offer protection to people. Some patients who hope to be screened for a specific patented gene may not be offered the same privacy issues among different companies. This leads to issues among the usage and the buying/selling of personal genetic information. If a company who owns certain rights can ensure ethical privacy, then it can offer patients some piece of mind. However, this could work the other way, where patients do not have a choice what happens to their information because only a single company owns rights. The Supreme Court faces a challenge in this ambiguous area of science. There may be a trade off between research restrictions, and hindering new discoveries, but it may be worth it to preserve the protection of patients who want to explore certain gene traits.
ReplyDeleteI begin this post without reading the article yet. My initial reaction to even the thought of patents on genes is the word ridiculous. There is no need to claim a gene. If you want to claim the finding of the gene, or new research revealing new information about the gene, that makes sense, but to patent the actual gene itself doesn't make sense. The biotech companies may have found this gene, but they certainly did not create it.
ReplyDeleteNow, after reading the article, my thoughts haven't really changed. I realize that everyone's out to make a name for themselves, and with all the hard work they want to win the awards and the money, but has it gotten to the point where companies are being selfish and forgetting the real reason they're doing the research, to help find new cures and treatments? I know I'm not anywhere as educated as these scientists, but wouldn't the concept of more resources working towards a breakthrough produce quicker results and therefore help others quicker? I'm not saying that those who figure things out shouldn't get the reward they deserve, I'm just thinking that they might want to take a step back and realize that greed may be getting in the way of research.
Usually, I would be very skeptical of anything posted on a website like About.com; however, this article by Paul Diehl, called “Can Companies Own Human Genes?,” is a very relevant and widely debated topic today. Thus, I see why we are reading it for our Genomics course. Biotech company research often results in finding previously unknown variations in specific genes that predict if a person might develop a disease or respond to a treatment. Diehl raises a great question, asking “In return for the investment to develop these medical tests, shouldn't companies have a certain right to profit from their discoveries?” As much as I want to believe the ultimate goal is for the good of the people, I can understand why profits are the main incentive for companies to make these sorts of investments. Sheba Ebhote’s post says the truth, “It is unrealistic to say that patenting genes is not something that is necessary for a company to do.” Though professors have said this before, I still thought it was interesting about hat makes a gene unique: the information encoded by the DNA, which is determined by the order in which the chemical components that make up DNA are linked together. The right to profit from new discoveries and technology is the logic behind patents, and the basis of a free-market approach to innovation. However, simple discoveries and naturally occurring material, including chemicals, cannot be patented. I am happy to learn that this does not include human DNA. Since companies cannot own the natural sequence of our genes outright, they claim rights to the mimics, copies, and isolated fragments of the natural DNA that are used for research and genetic testing. As a result, there are patent claims to thousands of genes. One example is how Myriad asserts it owns rights to gene tests that determine if women have certain mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which indicate a high risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer. In my opinion, it is fine that this company has a patent for these BRCA genes, but I do not like them being the ONLY ones with the patent. They are the stakeholders in regards to this specific gene, having the power to set it’s own prices for tests and who can get them. I agree with Max Gershenson’s thoughts on the movie we watched in class, “When watching the movie about the BRCA1/2 genetic mutation with Joanna, I thought the man who patented the gene for his company was rude, arrogant, and dismissive. This is completely true; when asked why the prices kept rising for these BRCA tests, the man was left practically speechless, because he knew the company was in the wrong. A line in Ervin Rivera’s blog post concerns me, “It would limit the amount of research that could be done if only one company could research on a gene.” Putting all of the politics aside, I think people need to look at the larger picture and at the ultimate objective of better health for the public. Gene patents are bound to happen, and I am okay with that, as long as it does not stop people from living healthier lives, now and in the future.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that genetic companies should have the right to choose what information that they disclose to their customers. Aren't the people who go to these companies paying them to get their genome sequenced and tested for the purpose of understanding their risk for getting certain diseases? If the companies start withholding information from their customers, then that is just bad business, and it should be stopped.
ReplyDeleteAs far as patents go, I think it's stupid to patent a gene. I don't disagree with a companies desire to make money off of an innovative idea, after all, money is an incentive for many great minds to provide innovative ideas; however, I think that these patents should be limited to the genetic tests themselves, not the genes. If a company prevents another company from "working" on their patented gene, then they could potentially be barring the people who could discover the cure for whatever genetic ailment the gene causes from working on that gene. This is a ridiculous practice, and it is a barrier to innovative ideas.
I think it is crazy that some companies think that it is acceptable to patent an individual's genes. However, I do think it should be allowed for companies to patent specially developed methods to isolate the material or synthesize it in the lab. One question I have is what exactly does it mean for a genetic company to have a patent to an individual's genes? Working with specific gene sequences, especially when it comes to helping prevent diseases from developing, is important in the medical world. Therefore, if a company has a genetic patent on a gene they will prevent other companies from performing research on the genes, which may lead to less medical discoveries in the future. The BRCA1 & BRCA2 genes are very important when studying ovarian and breast cancer, and more genetic companies should be studying them, not claiming rights on the genes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jonathon's comment that the success of scientific research is more valuable than competition. Genetic companies should strive to promote the health of individuals, and not worry about making a profit. I hope that the Supreme Court rules that obtaining the patents of genes should be illegal because it interferes with scientific research.
Patents are a very touchy subject in science. They are extremely beneficial because they promote scientific research and discovery. Without them we would not have most of the pharmaceuticals, vaccines, and medical knowledge that we do today. At the same time, these patents prevent universal access to scientific knowledge that could be lifesaving. In terms of genomics, I do not think that genes should be able to be patented.
ReplyDeleteI do not think it is fair to patent a part of our biology. These research companies did not create our genes. I also see many issues with these biomedical research companies working with patient’s genomes. Shouldn’t a patient be able to know if they have abnormal genes? I also do not think that companies should be able to prevent other scientists from working on their patented genes. I think that we need as many scientists as possible working on figuring out our human genome and what the variants mean. These variants could prevent illness, explain disease etiology, and save thousands of lives. If patents continue to be allowed, I can see research progressing. These patents serve as motivators to do further research due to monetary gains and “bragging rights.” I think that these patents are a huge disadvantage to patients though because they limit the information that we have access to, and increase our medical costs. Therefore, I do not think that patenting genes should be able to continue.
ReplyDeleteIt would be really nice if companies and people could stop treating genetic information like it is just another business commodity that abides by normal marketplace rules. Companies are so willing to ignore moral consequences in order to make a dime. No one should be able to have a patent on specific genes, it is not their invention, nor their idea and chances are their "test" is based on years of research from OTHER COMPANIES and scientists who dont work for them. Science should and most often is a collaborative discipline because its benefits apply to everyone. We should not stifle that atmosphere of collaboration by introducing a selfish business model. So no, companies should not have to right to stop others from working on "their gene," (that isnt even theirs- but i digress) because that stops progress and benefits to others. There are no good outcomes from this for the research side, as it would decrease the amount of research being done on certain genes because companies have patented it and therefore that would also halt benefits to patients because wait times for drugs/treatments/tests may be longer.
While it gives companies incentives to research the genes, they should not be allowed to patent genes. This limits the potential research that could be done by different companies. Not every company has the same capabilities as others and not allowing as much research as possible could limit potential discoveries about the genes. They should not have the ability to know information about patients' genes and not disclose this to them. Without the participation of the patient they would not have been able to conduct the research in the first place. Patients should be able to know as much information as possible, or at least as much information about their genes that they want to know. Having one company own the genetic information is beneficial in the sense that it is controlled testing and research, but it would ultimately limit the overall research.
ReplyDeleteWhen we spoke about this in class I remember asking about the ethics of gene patenting. Companies have no right to patent a gene, especially if testing for that mutation could improve someones health outcomes. In the case of BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 being controlled by the Myriad lab infuriates me. How can this company monopolize the test to identify a genetic mutation that is not so uncommon. The fact that this company is the only one that is legally about to test for this "breast cancer" gene makes the test expensive. I understand that research can still be done, but no profit can be made unless it is under the Myriad patent. I think the problem is that legislators are not scientist. They do not fully understand how patents can harm the greater good. We cannot widen the disparity gap and this monopolization does just that. We must be effective as possible, now more then ever with government funding being cut. Americans place an emphasis in what is most profitable instead of what is best for our communities.
ReplyDeleteI felt that this article did a good job of describing the confusing debate facing lawmakers about who owns the right to genes and whether or not they can be patented. The field of genetic testing is rapidly evolving, so it is important to determine how these laws should be enforced as more and more genetic tests enter the market and are made available to the general public. This is a difficult debate and there are pros and cons to each side of the argument. Personally, I find myself a little confused about what side of the debate I hold a stance on.
ReplyDeleteWhen I watched the documentary “In the Family” and learned about the patent Myriad Genetics has on the BRCA cancer genes, I found myself angry that a company was profiting from this test. Furthermore, I could not believe how expensive they were making the test so that it would not be financially affordable by its whole target audience. Therefore, I feel that companies should not be able to patent genes. As the article states, the genetic tests used are not unique and “simple discoveries and naturally occurring material” cannot be patented. Genes are naturally occurring in nature, so why should a company have the right to patent something that all humans and animals on the planet possess naturally and in essence allows life to exist? When a company has a patent on the gene, it stops other companies from competing and developing new tests for a certain gene. I do not think this is fair, especially to consumers. For instance, Myriad Genetics charges customers a steep price for their BRCA genetic testing. If other companies were allowed to develop test for the BRCA cancer genes, then perhaps this would drive down the costs of the test. Competition is a good thing in the market because it forces companies to compete for fair prices and accurate tests as a way of appealing to their consumers.
However, on the flip side of the argument, I can see why a company would want to patent a genetic test and why this would be good for consumers as well. When a company develops a genetic test, the company knows a great deal about the gene they are patenting. In other words, the company specializes in a specific gene and therefore devotes a great deal of time into creating an accurate test that can help consumers interested in learning about their DNA for a specific gene. Again, Myriad Genetics is a prime example of this. They own the patent to the BRCA cancer genes test. Many providers and patients rely on this company to give them accurate results about the genetic tests they provide. If these genetic tests could not be patented, then perhaps a flood of genetic tests for a particular gene would enter the market. Companies would advertise cheap prices to attract consumers, but perhaps these cheap costs would be affiliated with less accurate testing results. Companies could just test for a whole bunch of genes and not know a great deal about the genes they are testing.
Either way this debate ends, there are pros and cons to each side of the debate that will both benefit and hinder research and patients. This is a difficult task lawmakers must sort through. I find myself on the fence of this debate. I believe in the right of accurate tests, but also financially affordable tests that should be made available to consumers. It will be very interesting to see the development of genetic laws in the coming years.
In general, I do support patents because I believe that they promote a lot of great research. However, I am not in favor of patenting genes. I do not see how you can patent something that you did not create. It would be like patenting human legs or eyes (not talking about prosthetics here). No one created them, just how no one created our genes. They're just part of biology. I do agree with that companies should be able to patent methods to isolate the material. But that's completely different from patenting genes, no matter who's body they came from.
ReplyDeleteNo, I do not believe that companies can claim the right (or deny it) to disclose to patients specific information about variations in "their" genes that they discovered. That just seems cruel and unethical. Again, biotech companies cannot have the right of ownership to genes. That just seems absurd. It says it in the article itself, "Simple discoveries and naturally occurring material, including chemicals, cannot be patented." And this from my point of view, includes DNA. I just cannot think of any case in which it would be beneficial to deny a patient specific information about variations in the genes that this company discovered. I feel that it a person goes to a biotech company to get tested, it is because they want to find out all of the information in their genome, whether good or bad.
Companies with patented genes should not be able to stop other companies from working on their "claimed" genes, since this should not be able to happen, for the reasons stated above. DNA is biological material that is open to research by all. It would be like saying that only one surgeon should be able to operate on a certain part of the body since he was the first in the world to operate on it, so therefore the whole process is "his." This is ludacris. I can only see bad things come of this in both research and patient perspectives. Have biotech companies patent genes can severely limit the research on those said genes. That would prevent the field of genetics as a whole from moving forward in terms of technology. This would create a monopoly in the market, as whatever company has the patent for whatever gene could set their price as high as they want. This would interfere with making genetic testing available to all, which is a goal of the field of genomics as a whole. Having patents to genes just seems like a greedy process that's all about money and not about expanding awareness and accessibility of the field of genomics as a whole. Also, if companies patent genes, they could deny patients the right to information about them. And what good does that do for anybody?
While many students have brought up issues concerning an amorality in the practice of patenting genes and selling genetic information and testing services to the public, I believe that, although this practice seems harsh, not many people realize the need for competition and proprietary patents. Essentially the many prior arguments point out that collaboration could lead to greater health outcomes, but what motivation is there for researchers to research these solutions? R&D costs millions of dollars and without private funding that comes from selling these DTC products, those solutions would not exist. People often forget the costs of developing these solutions, it is not so simple as a matter of personal greed, but issues like these hinge on acquiring a great deal of funding which cannot be supported on public tax dollars.
ReplyDeleteCapitalism often receives a bad reputation, especially when associated with issues of health and medicine. It is not pure profit, it takes hundreds of prototypes and millions of dollars to develop just one working product. All the marketable products we see today, like myriad's DTC testing were developed using a lot of money which can only be earned back by private sales. Patents exist to allow companies to recuperate financial losses from the millions of dollars spent investing in researching, if patents did not exist to motivate companies to make those initial investments, private companies who innovate these ideas could not survive. Competition drives innovation and constantly motivates companies to develop the newest and best products, as we all know if there is no prize (financial protection via patent rights) very few people are motivated to improve (i.e. monopolized industries are less innovative than those with several competitors, consumers profit on company competition). This issue in my opinion is a matter of accepting the lesser of two evils, capitalism or a lack of innovation in medicine.
I am against gene patenting. I do not feel that it is right for companies to own DNA and genetic information that is found in billions of people and to profit off of that information. Companies should not be able to claim the right or deny the right to disclose specific information to patients about variations in "the company's" genes that they discovered. The goal of medical research should be to improve the quality and amount of information available to improve the overall standard of health and care throughout the world. Controlling what information an individual is allowed to have access to is not justifiable. How can you not inform someone of what is going on with their own genes, in their own body. If anyone should own that information it should be the individual. For companies to be able to profit for genes and genetic information is wrong and I feel violates certain rights that individuals have, one of those being having access to their health records and knowing as much about what is going on in their bodies as their doctors do to determine the best course of action going forward. Further, to control which companies are able to or not able to work on a "claimed" gene is absurd. Owning genes, in my opinion, will severely hinder medical research and patient knowledge. If only one company is able to apply whatever medical research techniques they have at their disposable, I feel that research and discovery can only go so far. By only looking at certain aspects of a gene or using limited techniques, companies are limiting the number of discoveries that could potentially be made about a gene. The more people that are able to research a gene, the greater the potential for new discoveries that could greatly improve health care techniques and patient health. I feel that by limiting the number of companies that have access to work on a gene, we are greatly limiting medical research and the development of new technologies, treatments, and important discoveries about what causes certain mutations and how to correct or treat the mutations if it is at all possible. The article I just read said, "The right to profit from the new discoveries and technology is the logic behind these patents." I believe that this statement summarizes the idea behind gene patenting perfectly. The goal is to monopolize on genes and to profit. Myriad Genetics is already a wealthy company with their BRCA patent, which has recently been extended outside of the United States to Australia, and will continue to collect wealth. They monopolize on the BRCA mutation and are the only ones legally able to run tests detecting for this mutation. The problem with gene patenting is that it is not about the patients or even the benefits of the research to health care. It is about the money behind it all and I find that such a devastating fact. Research should be about wanting new information to improve treatments and help better patients' health. Gene patenting helps certain members of a group increase their individual wealth. It does not seem to be about how many individuals they can help, only how they can increase the amount of money in their bank accounts. I do not believe that gene patenting should be legal as it is personal information that is critical for patients' to have access to. How is it possible that a company can own something that exists within each one of us? I feel that the ethics and logic behind gene patenting should be examined by officials and great detail and should not be allowed to occur in the future. No one should be able to control our health and well-being except ourselves. We are only hurting ourselves by allowing this to continue.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI think patenting genes is a selfish business practice. These companies are seeking patents in order to have monopolies over particular genetic tests related to these patented genes. I believe it is ethically wrong to try to monopolize particular genetic testing for profit. I believe that companies should not be able to claim ownership of genes and they should never be allowed to deny a patient information regarding their own genes. Myriad Genetics , with their claim of owning the rights to test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes is completely morally corrupt. The fact that these genes have a known link to breast cancer, and this company seeks to solely profit off of testing for these genes is disgusting. If they broadened access to the genetic testing surrounding BRCA genes, more facilities could offer the testing and more people could seek out this type of testing. Companies with patented genes are only impeding new scientific research by restricting the use of their patented genes. This is corporate greed halting advancements in what could be highly beneficial areas of research, I think by allowing patents on genes we are only limiting the medical advances we could collectively be striving for. I hope the practice of patenting genes is outlawed, so that patient and research opportunities are able to seek advancement.
Patenting genes brings up the issue of property and rights – who owns what? I firmly believe that companies should not have any claim of right to disclose or deny the right to disclose to patients specific information about variation in “their” genes that the companies have discovered. I think patients put their trust in these companies to run tests about their genes, discuss the results, and to keep the genes and information in private for no other use unless permission granted. The genes are rightfully the patients. In no way do companies have any right to claim a part of owning those genes just because they ran test. The purpose of these companies is to run tests and inform patients about the results. I understand that they would want to use any special discoveries that have been found in certain people’s genes for research but they do not own the genes. I think that companies with patented genes (where patients have given permission for the companies to use their genes) do have some right to stop other companies from working on their “claimed” genes. These genes have been entrusted to certain companies over others, therefore only the companies given the permission of ownership of these patented genes have a right to stop the other companies.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe companies should have the right to patent the genes they research. This could lead to a monopoly and excessive prices charged to patients for the genetic test. Since no other company without the patent could compete, prices would be uncontrolled. For example, think of the “In the Family” video we watched in class. Myriad Genetics charged around five thousand dollars for their genetic tests on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations!
ReplyDeleteOne positive outcome of gene patents is that it provides an incentive for people to do research. Since they have the potential for protecting their discovery with a patent, it allows scientists to conduct research on genes and offer new genetic tests to patients. On the other hand, patenting genes also discourages innovation. If one company has exclusive rights to a genetic variation, it bars other companies from conducting research on this gene and potentially offering better genetic tests or making new discoveries. In this way, gene patents prevent competition among academics which could allow for new discoveries, driven by market competition.
Gene patenting could provide patients with a highly effective or accurate genetic test, since the company with the patent could have been testing this gene for multiple years and would have perfected the process over time. However, no company is perfect. Other companies may offer less expensive or even better genetic tests or genetic information and counseling, but since they do not have the patent, the patient loses this opportunity for better genetic information. Perhaps the genetic testing industry could work in a way that is similar to the pharmaceutical industry, with companies able to patent their genetic variation or test for a short number of years before other “generic” tests are available from other companies.
To simply answer all of these questions, I say NO to the following: companies patenting genes, claiming the right/denying the right to disclose information to patients about specific gene variations that are discovered, stopping other companies from working with "patented" genes. I personally feel as though discoveries in science are just such fundamentals to human life that they should not be discussed as property...again, this is too much. Making discoveries on genes, etc. should be for the greater good of humanity, not for business purposes. In general, most researchers tend to be in such a field because they have a strong love for discovery and cures in the medical field, not because they are thinking about making millions. Something that has to do with the human body and its functioning, I do not think should ever be patented...it is like a person owning a part of your body...very creepy and simply outrageous. People go about arguing for patenting because everything is viewed as a company/business nowadays. So, some individuals believe that if you make a discovery, then you deserve to profit from its use, since it wouldn't be used otherwise. Although companies invest effort in discovering new genes, etc., they need to remember that they did not CREATE the genes...these are creations of nature. So again, I don't think this could be connected to inventions. Lastly, anything that is discovered about someone's genes (variations) or any other medical issues should be disclosed to the patient without hesitation if they request that they be told such. All in all, I am completely against creating such a strong market in a field of science research that should be simply focused on bettering the lives of our fellow humans.
ReplyDeleteI do not feel as though genes should be patented. This is because it decreases competition and sets up the environment for monopolies to form. As a result, this it can hinder the motivation for progress in other companies to compete, as well as the quality of research occurring. Although I do believe that the biotech companies should receive credit and profit from discovering certain genes and genetic tests, this can be done in various other ways than patenting a gene. If genes have a patent, than other companies who may have even better methods of testing a gene will not embark on the possible improvements bc it is already “owned” by another company. Putting a patent on a gene is unsettling to me because everyone has genes. Genes are inherently a part of who each and every one of us are, therefore they should not be treated as a physical piece of property to which a company has control over.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, it is not right to deny the right to disclose specific information that may benefit a company. In order to progress in the medical field, teamwork is crucial. The more brains and ideas for innovation, the better the outcome. Therefore, eliminating this necessary component by supporting the right to disclose specific information that’s beneficial to a company is debilitating to the progress of medical research.
Rather than trying to inhibit the research of other companies, each company should be focusing on their own research and working together to help improve the medical field for the benefit of society, not for an increase in their paycheck. Additionally, a company should not be able to deny the right to disclose specific information that may benefit a company because the genes should be considered the individuals, since they are in fact theirs. I agree with Alex Vastano’s post that this could be detrimental to the public because it is, in a sense, putting a value on people. This could have a slippery slope affect and people with rare genes would be prized, while people with common genes would be seen as nothing special. Furthermore, this could also lead to gene discrimination in society.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteArguing over whether or not genes are naturally occurring and if labs have the right to patent individual genes is failing to see the forest through the trees. As the article points out, scientists patent genes in an attempt to make a profit from the large amount of time and resources invested into making such a discovery. Presumably, in the heart of most scientists’ lies an enthusiasm for discovery. It is in the spirit of innovation that researchers use the hard-earned fruits of another lab’s labor. Hence it seems highly unlikely and against the attitude of most scientists to want to patent their work in order to block peers from scientific advancement. Therefore it seems safe to assume the reason why a scientist would actively seek to patent a discovery and then prevent others from using that idea in the pursuit of innovation is purely for economic motives. If this is the case, the question should be how could we establish a system in which scientists are monetarily incentivized and compensated for innovation without having to adversely affect the growth of the scientific community? Perhaps higher salaries and more monetary rewards for innovation would disincentive scientists for seeking patents on genes.
ReplyDeletesee also: http://biotech.about.com/od/Biotech-and-society/a/The-Supreme-Court-Reviews-Myriad-S-Gene-Patents.htm
I have had mixed feelings on patenting genes. As mentioned in the film we watched about breast cancer, patenting does not stop research and can actually fuel it even more through competition. However, I feel that patenting shows focus on profit and money, rather than actually helping people. While those who make the discoveries do deserve the credit and to gain success from their hard work as the article points out, I think patenting takes it a little too far. The film on the BRCA gene pointed out that with the patent, the genetic testing was still expensive. This therefore decreases the desire for people to want to get tested, even though getting screened could potentially help them. I don't think a company should "own" and individuals genes. However, it is hard to think of an alternative to this option where scientists will be satisfied as well as consumers.
ReplyDeleteThis article brings up some valid points regarding the future of genetic testing. As discussed in class, it sounds strange that a company could buy the rights to something that is intangible. I do not think that companies should have the right to “claim” genes and have the ability to deny patients rights to their own information. It will be interesting to read about the court cases about this matter and the rulings issued by the judges. I feel like this may be infringing upon out right to privacy. More laws will be potentially be enacted to protect this right to privacy so genetic information will not be made public.
ReplyDeleteEvery company is looking to make a profit and I understand the importance to have ownership on something but if it prohibits others from making further advancements in science. If companies “claim” genes then that company has the monopoly on testing and they can increase the price at will. It is unfair to a person that may not be able to afford this type of testing. Similar to the Myraid lab, the testing has not lowered in cost because of the company wants to make a profit. I think only bad outcomes will come of these monopolies due to the fact that people are losing sight of their overall goal: helping others.
I am opposed the notion of gene patenting in its entirety. I find the desire of Biotech companies to place claims on the most integral component of human life unethical. Further, I am struggling to understand how companies with a common goal would advocate for the right to stop the genetic research of another company on moral principle. It seems to me that the act of collaboration and sharing of ideas and overall transparency is the key to progress in the field of genetics. Therefore, I am shocked that the short-sighted prospects of competition is ruling over the greater good.
ReplyDeleteI understand the benefits of competition and fostering productivity within the workplace, however I believe in the long-run the only thing that this mentality might contribute to is patient confusion and probability of the spread of misinformation. An outstanding question that can be raised is, “what does a gene patent do?”. It seems as though the significance of patents have yet to be defined clearly enough. The article states that the precise meaning of what a gene patent provides remains vague, instating and signifying blurry rules and regulations.
I don’t believe that something as inherent and unique to our personal makeup, like genes, should be patented. However, I am open to the idea of patenting gene interpretation. I am unaware of prior existence or implementation of this proposal, but I’d regard it to be the patenting of a supposition, like a theory in a genetic context. Patents on theories would allow companies to have the rights to a school of thought, method, or interpretation of their discovery and use of technology, and its implications, but the gene itself is still independent.
My DNA is just that, mine, a company should not have the right to patent it or patent a specific gene that is mutated within it. Allowing companies to patent a mutation which they found within a gene is unethical. They should not be required to share their research but they should not be allowed the patent the gene. They do not have to let other companies know how they are testing but other biotech companies should be allowed to continue research on the gene because not allowing this is a waste of many different things. It wastes the patients money because they have no option to obtain the test from anywhere but the place that owns the patent which can be very expensive because they know they do not have to make prices competitive as they have no competition. This also wastes what could have been years and large sums of money of other biotech companies in the search for the testing method for the screening.
ReplyDeleteAny information found by these biotech companies in genetic screening the patient has the right to know. Although the company found the information, it belongs to the patient, its their genes and mutations. Patents in this field cause bad outcomes such as the company will see no need to further research and develop new and improved ways to test for the gene mutations. They will also see no reason to keep costs down as costs are not their concern when no other company can research and develop screening. Discontinuing patents will cause technologies to be reevaluated to see if they are the most cost effective and cost will be evaluated to make sure it is competitive which in turn should mean that the test is less invasive and less expensive. Creating monopolies in biotech companies will not allow this to happen.
I think that gene patenting should not be allowed. In order come to this I have taken into account both sides of the argument. I am aware that in order for companies to invest in research they must have an incentive to do so and that through patents they are assured that they will be able to profit from what they discover. Still I don’t think that they should have the right to deny a patient the right to know about their genes. Gene mutations that companies research and “discover” occur in nature and therefore they should not be allowed to profit off of it especially if it’s to the detriment of the rest of society. If there were to be a ban on gene patenting, I am almost certain that the amount of research done on gene mutations would significantly decrease since there would be no guarantee of profitability after a new gene is found. For patients that would be good because existing patents on genes would be invalid permitting other research companies to be able to develop new genetic screening tests that would result in current screening tests to be cheaper and more accessible to patients.
ReplyDeleteThere is no doubt in my mind that the work Myriad genetics has done to advance our understanding of how genetic variations, in terms of how they can influence the likelihood that a women may develop breast or ovarian cancer, is highly valuable and beneficial information and could potentially impact my life directly. However, as we saw in the "In the Family" video, they were not the only company that was capable of making this discovery, and in fact, were actually in a race with several other organizations to lay claim to the testing technique for isolating the BRCA mutations. Not only that, but we saw that they were charging thousands of dollars to the women sending their DNA in for testing. I think this story really shows how gene patenting should be seen as not only unethical but also dangerous. Patenting something so personal as variations in human genes takes away from the value we place in being human because it makes something natural and personal a product. I can understand, as others have mentioned, that these organizations are for-profit and need to benefit from the extensive work they put into isolating these variations, but I think that taking it a step beyond patenting techniques to patenting genes is the wrong move to make, especially if it allowed them to deny individuals the right to view these genes in their own genetic makeup. When the whole point of their discoveries is to share them with the scientific community, it seems ridiculous that patients and other researchers could not potentially benefit from them.
ReplyDeletePatents on genes prevents additional research and discoveries from being made on top of what is already known, and while some may feel that banning gene patenting may out a halt on this research, I feel that the biotech companies with a true desire to continue to make contributions to our understanding of the human genome will continue research. Patenting genes takes what Myriad has done a step further. Not only should Myriad reduce the price of their genetic testing, because I am sure that would not significantly reduce their profits and would allow more people to access their services, but they should not be allowed to patent the BRCA genes so that further can be performed.
In my opinion there is no need to patent genes. Patenting technologies for discovering genes, analyzing genes, and testing genes I believe to be another story. But the biological phenomena of the genes themselves should be left un-patented. For by patenting the gene themselves I believe that research and discovery becomes stunted so that business’ can become rich. This patenting stunts future development and is not productive for a growing science community. I will even extrapolate it to the United States as a whole. For we pride ourselves on being more advanced than other countries in science and medicine, by allowing patents of genes we are allowing ourselves to cut that dominance short, and I do not think that is beneficial for anyone. I’m a little confused as to the question about “companies claiming to disclose to patients specific information about gene variations,” but if it’s saying what I think it is, I hope that companies are giving advice with a supervising doctor, but I’m afraid they are not. So I am worried about companies, with an economic interest, giving patients medical advice!
ReplyDeleteAgain just to reiterate, technology is one thing to patent, but biological discoveries will be the American scientific downfall. Patents cannot be allowed on genes and companies cannot have authority of preventing research on these specific genes. I don’t see a positive for the scientific field by allowing restrictions on working on genes. I see two outcomes. Restrictions on genes leading to stunted discoveries, and I see lazy researchers not motivated because there is no need to rush to new discovery. Again I’m disappointed in people trying to patent what is already there, but I’m not against patents on techniques for discovering these genes. But that’s a whole other discussion.
To directly answer the question post in the title, no, companies cannot own my DNA. It's possible for them to own technology that enables them to sequence and study DNA - but in regards to actually owning it it is not possible.
ReplyDeleteIt goes back to the documentary we saw in class about the young woman with the variants in her BRCA-1/BRCA-2 genes and how the representative of Myriad had no way of explaining why the price of testing for patients keeps increasing. This is not a new invention that a person came up with. DNA is already here. It's already in my body for my own personal use. I do not think that claiming a gene that other labs cannot test unless they pay for it should be allowed. I do not think that making people pay large sums of money for something that is no longer that costly to be done should not be allowed.
I agree with what a lot of my classmates have all been saying. Patenting a gene is unneeded and even goes against the reason for why patents exist to begin with.
When our class first watched the documentary on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, I was taken back by the fact that a single company had patented these mutations. I could not believe that such a thing was even possible, let alone legal. From my perspective, I strongly believe that because we are born with genes, that our genes are OURS and nobody else's. I do NOT believe companies, such as Myriad, should be given the opportunity to patent specific genes. If nobody can patent naturally occurring material, such as chemicals, then what gives companies the right to patent naturally occurring genes and mutations? Although I disagree with companies patenting methods for gene and mutation detection/separation, I cannot think of any other way to give credit to companies, such as Myriad, that discover these methods. It seems like there it no other way that these companies can be given the credit they deserve while receiving the financial benefits that stem from their breakthrough discoveries. I may not agree with it, but I suppose I cannot blame companies for wanting to patent their discoveries in genes because in the end, these companies are just that: Businesses. Everything seems to revolve around money today and if there is no substantial reward for their efforts, why bother spending their time and resources? If, by law, a company "owns" a gene or a mutation of a gene, then I believe it is up to their discrepancy whether they would like to retain or disclose patient's information. I do not believe companies should have a say on what other companies pursue though, as this would seem monopolizing.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of research, as I touched on earlier, I believe that patenting is the only true way to fuel new research and to push researchers to continue making discoveries. The reward for their time and effort must outweigh the costs. Patenting, as we have seen, seems to fit this template quite well. Unfortunately for patients, they are the ones that will be forced to pay the companies whatever the set price is, as expensive as it may be. The only plus-side for patients as far as I can tell is the fact that their information will (hopefully) be kept safe by one single company. Otherwise, I think it is the patients that suffer the most out of this deal.
What is your opinion on patenting genes? Can companies claim the right (and, in turn, deny the right) to disclose to patients specific information about variations in “their” genes that they discovered? Furthermore, do you think companies with patented genes should have the right to stop other companies from working on their “claimed” genes? What outcomes (good or bad) can come of this from both the research and patient perspectives?
ReplyDeleteI am also leaning towards disagreeing with the ability to patent genes. To predicate the ability to patent the gene because it is no longer "naturally occurring" because it is being replicated synthetically is a slippery slope. For example, if we were to expand this theory to a more macro level, companies in the future could patent a clone (should it be possible). I think the difficulty lies in the fact that these synthetic genes are "artificial," and yet play key roles in naturally occurring things. I do, however, believe if a biotech company were able to develop some new test that separated itself from current standard practice, then that methodology could be patented. If the test were controlled enough, similar to the process in research studies, then a participant may be required to sign away their claim to the information derived from this test. This does not, however, indicate that these companies can own specific genes-- simply the diagnostics or whatever technology that is based around it.
Perhaps because these genes are initially discovered in a naturally occurring environment, just as discoveries of chemicals were made, companies should not be able to deny the right to research or experiment with these genes.
In research, a benefit that may come of it is that a company can become specialized in specific genes, allowing them to gain the most knowledge and potentially utilize their discoveries to its full benefit. On the other hand, similar to a government run market, perhaps less progress might be made because of a lack of competition. From the patient's perspective, however, if genes were patented, if important interventions develop surrounding these genes, a monopoly may cause many issues for patients involving the indicated gene.
I believe that genes, like other research companies mentioned in the "In The Family" video, should not be patented. Instead they should be published, like the video mentioned. In turn, companies should not have the right to do what they please with information. The information of a patient's genetics should be considered personal information that should not be disclosed unless the patient requests so.
ReplyDeleteIn respect, companies should not have the right to stop other companies. In order for innovation to emerge, work needs to be done outside the company. If the company who owns the patent to a gene only has one view on how to work with said gene, there will be no room for innovation on work with the gene. This method can be relatable to the developer stage of many prototypes of technology like the Google Glass. The prototype is given to developers so that they can add their own improvements or any type of innovation to the product. If genes are owned by companies, research will be limited and ultimately patients, who might need a breakthrough innovation with a gene, will not be able to get it.
Although patenting genes should not be allowed because it will restrict the progression of medical science, there are probably companies that are large enough that can easily afford the lawyers to bypass any patent restriction. Every great genetic and scientific breakthrough is built off previous research; and although patents will raise profit, they will hurt progress. It seems illogical to patent a gene from a bystanding view point; however if a company was able to find a gene involved with eliminating cancer, a patent would allow them to instantaneously become one of the fastest growing companies in history. The idea that a company would not attempt to patent a gene is unrealistic because these companies expect their investment funding to have a return. Companies should not have the ability to let their ownership of a genetic patent and doing so would turn a promising scientific field into an unstable market. Genetic companies that make large quantities of money and patent would monopolize their gene market and would have too much control over a single area. If genetics is to eventually become a large market, everyone must be able to compete in it, for economic and scientific benefits.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI find myself feeling skeptical toward gene patenting as described in the article. In my opinion, the evidence that argues patenting is a valid and fair practice is minimal. At this point, the potential harm from patenting genes outweighs any supposed benefits. First, by patenting genes we are exposing genetic research to a capitalist system. In the current medical system, many aspects of research and discover is consumed by competition and money. While some argue that providing financial incentives to medical research will help spur growth and innovation, I fear it opens the door to corporate corruption and abuse of sick individuals.
ReplyDeleteThis point is support by the statement in the article, "It is not the way the tests are run that is unique. What makes a gene unique is the information encoded by the DNA, which is determined by the order in which the chemical components that make up DNA are linked together". The fact that it is not how the tests are run demonstrates, in my opinion, the inability for us to say that it can be owned by someone.
I’m all for the free-market approach, but when it comes to the human genome, things get a little fuzzy. DNA sequences are part of what makes us, us. Different variations of DNA sequence are what differentiate us from our neighbors, coworkers, friends, etc. Having ownership of something like that is crazy. It is an amazing discovery that biotech companies should definitely be able to make a profit on. However, I think they can make their profit by doing something with the information they gain from a discovery like that. Developing diagnostic tests, or treatments tailored to one’s specific genetic code could be very profitable. I think companies should not be able to claim the right of something like a gene. As many of my classmates have mentioned before me, the sharing of information helps make bigger gains for science in general, but especially with a specific gene or variation;. Although companies so want to do what is right for mankind and try to solve and develop what they can, the spreading of information would yield such better results. I see greater gains being made for patients and for further research into a topic that is very new and is just starting to be understood. The happy medium will be reached when some how companies can have a patent and make money off their hard work, but can share the information they gained with others who may be looking at it from a different angle. By sharing information and new technologies with other companies, biotech companies can get advice from others and make for a much more friendly, rapidly expanding biotechnology field.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of companies owning a person's genes is a scary one. I feel that companies should be entitled to profits and compensation if they discover a new testing method, machine, or create a new invention, but not to the rights to the results of the testing they perform. And I feel that by allowing companies with patented genes to stop all other research from happening on those genes, a lot of potential and beneficial discoveries will be prevented from being made - solely for the sake of monetary compensation. The article itself stated that "... companies cannot own the natural sequence of our genes outright." The companies should be making profit through the selling of their service (being genetic testing), not by claiming rights to something that they did not create (the individual DNA sequence).
ReplyDeleteWhen I first learned that the BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes were patented and therefore the company Myriad was legally allowed to control the testing on these genes, I was surprised and disappointed. I do not think one company should have authority over testing genes, as the biological makeup that makes us human is not any ones to own or control; especially as this ownership is often at the expense of individual’s health who cant afford the testing. The practice of patenting genes limits both the competition between researchers and competitive pricing, which can slow down scientific advancement and limit the number of people who can benefit from the findings. I think research companies should be committed to making scientific discoveries to share with their peers and improve healthcare, and less concentrated on how to claim something as “theirs” to make money on. Although it is naive to say these companies can keep advancing without strong profits, I think there can be a fairer balance if patenting were illegal. This would only improve the field of genetic testing by improving cooperation and information sharing, and making tests more available to the population.
ReplyDeleteEven the article states that any naturally occurring material cannot be patented, and this includes human DNA. I do agree that biotech companies should be able to profit from their research, but I don't think it's ethical or fair for DNA to be patented by different companies. Research would be seen as a competition of how many genes one company can patent so they can claim these rights to themselves. It would also limit research on certain patented genes if other companies have ideas of what to do. Genes are part of people and rather than companies selfishly keeping a patented gene to themselves, the knowledge should be shared amongst companies if anything. We should all be working together to further develop our understanding in the sciences and to help people in the medicinal future, not competing with each other to stake a claim for a particular gene.
ReplyDeleteAnd obviously, companies should never be allowed to refuse information to the people whose genes they're working on. There are ethical issues in witholding information, and if the person wants to know what the companies are doing, it's their DNA, their body, and their right to know. Genetic research is supposedly done to help people, but refusing to give information to people isn't going to help. If anything, it seems backwards to prevent people from improving their health by denying them the knowledge.
I agree with Jeremy's post above. I do believe that biotech companies have the right to patent techniques, tests and other things related but they should not be able to patent the gene itself and only allow their company to test for that gene similar to what Myriad has done with the BRCA genes. And since this field is so new and there is little regulation, these companies can abuse their market power and use patents to create a monopoly which does not seem to be benefiting society because how can you own something that is owned by all from their moment of conception?
ReplyDeleteI believe that when it comes to healthcare, monopolies and profit are less acceptable because it is something that we all need and have the right to preserve. Therefore, we will need stricter regulation on this emerging field.
I support the ability to patent a gene, if the pharmaceutical industry can patent a drug. I do not see much difference in the goals of each industry's use of patents. The article states that "no one is precisely clear as to what rights these gene patents provide", as long as the supreme court eliminates this discrepancy by adjusting the rules of patents to also fit the idea of genetics then there should be no difference in opinion of patenting genes and patenting drugs.
ReplyDeleteThe article also states that "with most natural products, companies can patent specially developed methods to isolate the material or synthesize it in the lab". This would apply to the patents at question because the variation sequence is needed in order to conduct a wide array of further studies, including the synthesis of this DNA variation to conduct hybridization tests or silencing tests. If pharmaceutical companies can stop other companies from working on a drug, or further developing a drug that these other companies did not discover, then the same rule should apply for genes considering that the general goal in both cases is to apply the findings toward the advancement of medicine. Patents will give the deserving company a window of time to make a profit, since an incredible amount of money can be needed to fund research. Without allowing for protection through the use of patents, companies would be discouraged and there would be less incentive to invest in genetic studies.
From a patient perspective, as with in the pharmaceutical field, a negative outcome of the patents is the lack of competitive pricing. Unfortunately, this is something that we have to deal with until the patent is up if we want to see new treatments emerge. It would be of concern if this were not consistent with the pharmaceutical field, but the idea of patenting seems to be following the same trend in genes as it does in drugs. As long as the coverage by genetic patents becomes clearly defined, so companies know their exact rights/limitations under a patent for a gene as opposed to a drug, then there should be no question about the idea.
I believe that the sequencing of the microbiome would be extremely useful in the treatment of gastrointestinal disease. It might also be helpful in deciding which lifestyle changes would be the most successful. It would be potentially helpful when formulating pharmacological treatment strategies for patients. The synthesis of new microbiome treatments would provide relief to patient wrestling with GI disorders. It would be necessary to account for the changes in the microbiome which occur due to hormone changes. How could this possibly effect the microbiome of the synthesized microbes and consequently their performance. Another factor to account for is the microbiological environment of the microbes. Could this alter the genetic expression of the synthesizes microbe in a differently than the naturally occurring microbes? Could the presence of such unnatural microbes result in the growth of resistant bacteria? There would need to be extensive research preceding the implication of synthesized microbe in a treatment plan.
ReplyDelete