Gene patents are at the intersection of cutting edge technology, modern commerce and human ethics. And recently the Senate’s Community Affairs Committee has taken evidence as part of their inquiry into gene patents.

Who owns your genes?

Over the last two decades around the world patents have been granted over isolated gene sequences for which a practical and useful application has been identified.

More often than not the practical application is a test for diagnosing a condition that the inventor has shown is associated with the gene.

A patent gives intellectual property rights over isolated gene sequences and its uses if the chemical structure of the isolated sequence was not previously known.

How the law responds to the regulation of gene patents represents the kind of thorny challenge which is uniquely facing public policy makers in the 21st Century.

Yet patents are not new. Originating in the 15th Century patents are a response to the dilemma of trail blazing.

The first person to make the trail expends enormous effort in the journey, while every person following completes the same journey with ease.

So why would any person blaze a trail? Yet as a society we need trails blazed.

Patents are our answer to this dilemma. In exchange for developing an invention and making it public, the inventor is provided with a monopoly over the commercial exploitation of the invention for a period of up to 20 years.

Patents provide an incentive to invent. They have been integral to the most extraordinary period of human innovation in history.

Where the rubber has hit the road in relation to gene patents has been the patent for the BRCA breast cancer susceptibility.

In 1994 American researchers isolated the BRCA1 gene sequence, determined its chemical structure and its association with familial breast cancer.

The resulting test enables women to be tested for the presence of mutations in the BRCA1 gene and take action to reduce their risk. It is an invention that is saving lives.

In Australia, Genetic Technologies Limited (GTL) is the licensee of the BRCA diagnostic test and provides an accredited testing service. Initially GTL permitted public hospitals to undertake BRCA testing, but later sought to enforce their patent.

It was this enforcement of the patent, and the fear that GTL’s testing service might be more expensive, which has fuelled the debate about human gene patenting.

While issues around the human genome are unique, the role of patents in the affordable provision of medicine is far from unique.

For example the availability of generic drugs for HIV suppression in the developing world in the face of patents held by drug companies is a debate that has raged for twenty years.

Yet without the availability of patents, research may never have been done to develop the drugs in the first place.

For those who argue against the availability of gene patents there are three issues of concern.

First, patents are not available for discoveries such as a new mineral or a new plant. Human gene sequences, it is argued, already exist and their identification represents a mere discovery not an invention.

Second, it is argued that patents such as the BRCA test patent prevent further research in the area which might help develop an even better diagnostic test.

Finally, is it ethical to have intellectual property rights over isolated human genes?

On the other side of the debate is the need to ensure that our system of intellectual property is robust. As technology companies scan the globe for the best place to do business key amongst their needs is a system of law which respects and protects their intellectual property.

This has been a comparative advantage for Australia in attracting the development of international technology to our shores which is vital in developing a high tech modern economy.

Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies also argue that the development of gene-related technologies require the same sorts of activities and effort that are involved in the development of a new drug.

Accordingly the acquisition of intellectual property rights are the only way that such innovation can be commercially viable.

Most importantly there is a premium on Australia having laws which are consistent with the international patent system. To be out of step with international norms carries significant risks that Australia will be bypassed by the global innovation system.

Among developed or emerging economy affiliates to the World Intellectual Property Organisation only Brazil and Argentina currently prevent the patenting of gene technologies. To join this number there needs to be compelling reasons.

The Government’s agency responsible for patents is currently reviewing the patent system. The issue of the right to conduct research around existing patents will form part of this review.

But for the Government to go further in establishing an explicit ban on the right to obtain a gene related patent is a very big call.

Should that call be made? We await the outcomes of the Senate inquiry’s report with interest. 

 

Most commented

7 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Dan says:

      09:21am | 15/08/09

      It certainly is an interesting problem, and one that has no real solution that is going to please everyone. Unfortunately, the latest technology in anything, and especially medicine is very expensive and we the public must be willing to pay for it if we want it. Research and Development costs a lot. Think about Viagra, it really only costs a couple of cents per pill to make, but they sell them for however many dollars each. The reason being is, not only are you paying for the pill you are taking, but also all the years of work that went into the development of it. As well as this you are paying for all the years of work that went into the development of pills that didn’t work or aren’t being sold.
       
      The other side of the coin is I’ve been working in a place that came up with a prospective drug for AIDS treatment, but management didn’t even bother pursuing it as its chemical structure was too close to another patented compound and they thought they’d have to pay royalties.

      Perhaps the reason we have these issues arising now is because in the public’s collective mind we see inventors as slightly crazy middle aged and eccentric men working away in their garage for 20 years who come up with an amazing discovery. Of course they should be protected and allowed to have a cottage in the country! The reality now of course is that it’s more likely to be a huge nameless, faceless pharma company, pouring millions of dollars into research and at the end of it the company gets an extra 12.872% to their gross profit making it 5.623 squillion dollars annually and the CEO who has never stepped in the lab in his life gets a private plane etc while the millions of people who can’t afford their drugs die in abject poverty….

    • jim says:

      10:37am | 15/08/09

      Patents has it’s place.

      But I think that discoveries needs it’s own reward, in the past it was good to discover an orchid or a new species, and name it.  For example,  Alick Dockrill and the Dockrilla species, the reward is that you’ll have your name forever on that species, that is unless English dies.

      But if the reward is needed to be in the form of cash, then possibly a slight adjustment such as, the inability for any rights holders to hold back the human right for treatment. The Licences must be sold or auctioned off, in a particular market or something of that sort

    • iansand says:

      04:43pm | 15/08/09

      I can understand patenting a new drug or therapy.  Patenting something that has been in cell lines for a million years is obscene.  Patents are for inventions, not discoveries.

    • davido says:

      05:19pm | 15/08/09

      Ok im not saying that patents dont provide an incentive for research.
      But in the field of medical research there is plenty of public research going on. Important stuff, not cherry picking like the big pharma’s do.

      The other myth I object to is the cost of research. When you take out the marketing, legal and junket budget you will find the actual cost is not as high as is claimed.

      There is also something repugnant about a few pharma’s holding the human race to ransom.

    • anne says:

      02:24pm | 16/08/09

      I completely agree with iansand. Patents are for inventions. You can’t patent the original organic - ie: you can’t patent iron ore, but you can patent the inventions using it as part of the final product. It’s all about protecting intellectual property rights and of course is very important. BUT genes are not the ‘product’ of human invention and ingenuity.
      Patent what you DO with that sequence, patent as many of the developed tests etc as you want - but no one can OWN the rights to that gene or gene sequence.
      How legal/corporate minds can blur this line speaks to dangerous thinking in that sphere.

    • Dan says:

      04:58pm | 16/08/09

      You shouldn’t be able to patent something that’s naturally occurring.  The test to find it on the other hand…

    • Phil says:

      10:58am | 17/08/09

      @Dan - you’re right. And you can’t patent something that is naturally occurring. Part of the debate in this Senate inquiry is about the patents held over what flows from the discovery of the gene. Some argue this shouldn’t be patented either.
      @davido - The answer is that there isn’t plenty of public research going on - at least not without massive funding from the pharmaceutical industry. I think in the US, medicines research is funded 1% Govt, 2% Universities and 93% pharma.

      You have to remember that enormous amounts of research is done collaboratively between public institutions and pharmaceuticals.

      If you want more funding from the public purse, then you need to convince Government’s to fund it. At the moment, they are left very wanting in this area.

      Richard Marles is right in that the issue that sparked this whole debate was about the BRCA test and Genetic Technologies assertion of its patent rights. What also needs to be remembered is that they later changed their position - within a couple of months. Also, when this same issue came up in the US, it was decided in court, with the patent being weakened to remove this issue.

      So, it was a case of the present legal system dealing with it appropriately, without a need to change the laws.

      Marles is also right that being out of step with the rest of the world inhibits Australia’s ability to attract research here. We already miss out on a lot - it doesn’t make much sense to further damage our international reputation in the research field.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@TheStalwart an analyst in Sydney said it was a "sad day" http://t.co/vh4Yu4OgDD. I think he was just exhausted and gave up analyzing

ToryShepherd

@CatherineDeveny @sydwritersfest A wobble

Paul Colgan

RT @NASA: Amazing views from the International Space Station of Pavlof Volcano erupting in Alaska. http://t.co/vqBkkiOful

Paul Colgan

US Google Doodle features a girl's touching depiction of her father's return from Iraq http://t.co/4LiRFOntTY

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter