James
Shreeve’s The Genome War examines the
strained relationships between private and publicly funded scientific research
and opposing ideologies involved in the race between Celera Genomics and the Human Genome Project to be the first
to map the human genome. The Human Genome
Project’s goal was to provide unrestricted public access to all 3 billion base
pairs of the human genome with 99.99% accuracy. Their intent was to advance
scientific knowledge and initiate further research and discovery. Celera Genomics, in contrast, wished to patent
specific sections of the genome deemed medically important and profitable to
investors in order to fund their research.
By patenting a specific gene, Celera would restrict access to those parts
of the human genome. It is this
fundamental concept of intellectual rights and the patenting of genes which have
been “purified out of their natural state and shown the hand of man”, that resulted
in the feverish rivalry between Celera and the Human Genome Project (Shreeve
106).
This debate continues today over the
ability of companies to patent genes.
Those who oppose the “patentability” of genes argue it can make treatments based on the gene
unaffordable to patients. They point out a
company’s ability to set a price for treatment without any competition. However, companies like Celera counter,
arguing profit is a necessity for the survival of the company and continued
research. They were “damned if they were
going to pay ten million a year to someone and not get to file a patent”
(Shreeve 105). Companies like Celera must
be able to recoup the tremendous expense involved in repeated research and
testing to prove their treatments safe. Profit
provides the incentive needed for investors to commit millions of dollars and for
researchers to devote years of study to the subject.
It is the profit incentive which is the
driving force behind competition and innovation. Without possibility of financial gain, Celera,
a company based entirely on the highly debated genome shotgun method, would not
have been created. Without Celera and
the intense competition it produced in the field of genomic research, the Human
Genome Project would not have had the need or incentive to generate new,
faster, and more accurate methods to sequence DNA. Without
competition for the sake of the possibility of financial reward, exploration of
the new field of genomic manipulation would have advanced at a much slower pace
without the exploration of unique and
innovative techniques including the
whole genome shotgun method of sequencing.
The purpose of a patent is “to
push originality out into the open where it can be used to produce more
originality” (Shreeve 225). The granting
of a patent for a specific gene proved medically relevant and to which
treatments can be applied, would incentive the use, innovation, and
exploitation of the full potential of such technology.
Certainly, a person cannot lay claim to a gene by simply naming it or describing it. It is the productive use of the gene for the betterment of society for which a company should be rewarded with a patent to recoup its expense.
Certainly, a person cannot lay claim to a gene by simply naming it or describing it. It is the productive use of the gene for the betterment of society for which a company should be rewarded with a patent to recoup its expense.
Sources:
1. Shreeve, James. The Genome War: How Craig Venter Tried to Capture the Code of Life and save the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. Print.
I totally agree with your last statement. I think monetary compensation for finding a gene isn't an appropriate reward. If scientists are only in it for the money then they shouldn't be scientists. I agree that once the gene has proven to better society some compensation should be rewarded, but the money should be used to further research in the discovery of more genes
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of you. If a scientist was only researching for money, then he or she should look for a future in another profession. To be successful as a scientist, you need to have the passion for finding innovative ideas that could unravel the mysteries of life. The major difference between privately and publicly funded research is where the money to fund the research is coming. However, like Megan stated, the reward money should be used for more research of genes rather than superfluous reasons.
ReplyDeleteThis is an intriguing post because you would think that scientists, all smart and what not, would know that one cannot patent something that they themselves did not create nor assemble. The genome and all the genes that lay within it were not "created" by these people, they were discovered. Electricity was discovered, dinosaurs were discovered, these are similar things that cannot be patented and it is silly to even hear the idea of patenting genes being a thing. It is true, the profit and/or patent should come from the use and innovation that comes from a discovery, not the discovery itself. Awesome post!
ReplyDeleteIt's not personal, it's just business. This is the motto my old history teacher always used when talking about large companies making business decisions. I agree with your point of view on the matter. If companies were allowed to patent genes, they would find a way to increase the price of their products to make money, but also make them unaffordable for many customers.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your opinion that a company should not be allowed to patent a gene just because they discovered its approximate location in the genome. They can certainly patent the technology they used to find it and any practical tests that could be used to determine whether the gene could possible have a harmful allele, but you should not be able to patent something you did not create. You can't patent a discovery of a previously existing phenomenon without altering it in some positive and useful way.
ReplyDelete