“A genome is an organism’s entire bundle of DNA” (Silverman, 2008). The Human Genome project ran from 1988 to 2003. The purpose of it was to map out all of the existing genes and determine their location on the chromosomes. This would later on benefit the researchers trying to study a specific gene. It turned out that there are about 20 500 human genes (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2012). Another goal was to make it possible for scientists to compare the different genomes of different people. In addition, a number of animal genomes were mapped out, including those of mice, rats, chimpanzees and fruit flies. By comparing the genomes of these and some other animals with human genomes, scientists can gain a better understanding of our ancestors and evolution in general. Some cancer genomes were also collected such as that of leukemia, so scientists could determine their mutation patterns which could lead to the invention of more effective and personalized treatments for this disease. (Silverman, 2008) For this project, automated DNA sequencers were used, which proved to be the most effective way of obtaining detailed gene information (Rothe, 1999). When the Human Genome project was completed, the concept of DNA patenting became very popular amongst people from all over the world. The idea is that someone can manipulate a gene and if the resulting gene is useful and unique they can patent their creation, so for the next twenty years no one is allowed to sell or manufacture this gene without the patentee’s permission. One of the most famous gene patents is insulin, created in 1982. As of today, there are over three million DNA patents on record (Franco, 2011).
An article written for the Science Insider by Eliot Marshall titled U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Human Gene Patents talks about a court case between the American Civil Liberties Union and Myriad Genetics. The issue that arose was that Myriad patented a number of human genes after separating these genes from other genetic material. ACLU on the other hand argued that even though the discovery was interesting, the company should not be credited for the creation of this new gene because they did not actually create anything. The court ruled in favour of ACLU, stating that nature-made genes cannot be patented, but also added that synthesized DNA can still be claimed as intellectual property. The article goes on to talk about different organizations speaking out on this issue, including the National Institute of Health that stated that claiming rights on DNA in its natural state does not present any purpose and simply makes it very pricy for scientists to use this gene in their research as they have to pay the royalty fee to the “owner” of this gene. The article mentions that after this case companies will need to work harder to prove that whatever they are trying to claim as their intellectual property is actually an altered gene and they had done sufficient work on modifying it. This restriction will allow academic labs to expand their research, now having more genes to work with. Despite their loss, Myriad stayed positive and stated that it still has 24 other patents lined up that are valid and they will be going through with those clams (Marshall, 2013).
After learning about gene patenting and reading the article, I support the Supreme Court’s decision and think that there should be strict boundaries on what can and cannot be claimed as intellectual property. I believe that if such boundaries do not exist and the process of patenting a “new” gene is made easy, this will leave very limited DNA for academic labs and public organizations to work with, stalling development in this field. I like how the Supreme Court is still allowing synthesized DNA, also known as cDNA, to be patented because I think this will encourage people and companies to interchange genes and create new, unique patents which will be useful and beneficial to our society.
Question:
Dear readers, do you think that all DNA, both natural and synthesized, should be eligible for patenting or only the DNA that has been evidently modified from the original?
Let me know what you think in the comments below 🙂
You can find the original article here:
http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2013/06/u.s.-supreme-court-strikes-down-human-gene-patents
References
Franko, M. (2011, October 3). How Gene Patents Work. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/gene-patent1.htm
Marshall, E. (2013, June 13). U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Human Gene Patents. Science/AAAS. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://news.sciencemag.org/people-events/2013/06/u.s.-supreme-court-strikes-down-human-gene-patents
National Human GenomeResearch Institute. (2012, November 8). An Overview of the Human Genome Project. An Overview of the Human Genome Project. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.genome.gov/12011238
Rothe, I. (1999). Human Genome Project. Human Genome Project. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students99/rothe.htm
Silverman, J. (2008, December 10). What have we learned from the Human Genome Project?. HowStuffWorks. Retrieved December 1, 2013, from http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/genetic/human-genome-project-results2.htm
Human Genome Project and DNA Patenting 
I also support the Supreme Court’s decision. If the genes were to be patented, only a few individuals would have the monopoly over these life forms, which would prevent others to adapt drugs to different patient populations and to design new tests without paying high fees. (Perkel, 2013) An ethical issue with the human genome project is that religious organizations argue that the human genome project is a way to interfere with the laws of God and also nature. (Health Fitness info Magazine, 2013) I think that only the DNA that has been evidently modified should be patented because I don’t think that privileged groups should maintain the domain over natural DNA.
References
Health Fitness info Magazine. (2013) Think You Know Human Genome Sequencing Pros and Cons? Think again! Retrieved from http://www.healthfitnessinfomagazine.com/biotech/think-you-know-human-genome-sequencing-pros-and-cons-think-again/
Perkel, J. (2013) Gene Patents Decision: Everybody Wins. Retrieved from http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/36076/title/Gene-Patents-Decision–Everybody-Wins/
I personally think that human genome project is full of benefits, as it can determine the mutations happening and improvements in the diagnosis of diseases or gene therapy. it also enables scientists to compare human genomes as previously stated. genome project also identifies human genes and make them available for further biological studies(melaas,1999). I think that only the DNA that has been evidently modified from the original should be eligible for patenting because it has less risks over the original one, an ethical issue would be manipulations should be permitted and which should be prohibited?
REFERENCE :
Daniel,M. (1999),Human Genome Project, retrieved from: http://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/students99/melaas.htm
I believe that the human genome project is useful as well. It gave us the key to making human life (National Human Genome Institute 2013) and allowed scientists to develop treatments for diseases like cancer and Alzheimer (Natural news 2012). Yet some ethical groups believe that by using this process they are altering the course of nature which is seriously looked down because of their belief in nature and its law. Furthermore regarding patenting I have to disagree with the court’s decision because although society has the right to know we should be grateful for the people who allowed this to happen.
References:
Natural News (2012). The $3 billion Human Genome Project was supposed to find the
root causes of all diseases, but turned out to be a scientific boondoggle. Retrieved from http://www.naturalnews.com/037167_human_genome_project_scientific_failure_disease.html
National Human Genome Institute (2013). All About The Human Genome Project (HGP). Retrieved
from http://www.genome.gov/10001772#top
In regards to the decision made by the Supreme Court, I would be for their decision as it does limit and take away research about DNA information for labs and for general research purposes, if the courts supported the idea of gene “claims” by Myriad Genetics, it would have a very negative impact on society knowing that scientist have not completed the full research on genetics in the environment. This decision would help benefit industries with the process of creating and discovering new unique genes. In curiosity do you think some religious groups would be for or against the court’s decision as it is an ethical issue?
The human genome project changed the field of genetics forever. Once the mapping and sequencing was completed it opened doors to many opportunities. The knowledge that came with the completion of the project allowed scientist to better understand how mutation affect disease and even pin-point specific genes to corresponding illness. However, with these new abilities came corporate competition. After the HGP the controversial gene patenting took off. I personally am on the fence about gene patenting because it has some very positive aspects but also some very negative ones.
Optimistically, by allowing companies to patent genes it gives them time to research and look at “their” genes without the pressure of others. This is beneficial because it allows companies, especially smaller ones the opportunity to make discoveries without the worry of other larger, more established companies to overtake them (Genetics Generation, 2013). It also saves the wasted effort of multiple companies working on the same thing at once (Arya, 2013). Secondly, patents offer investment opportunities. It usually takes million maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to research and create a new drug, but by patenting genes companies or individuals can invest and provide financial support to smaller companies that need it (Genetics Generation, 2013). Additionally, reward and recognition is given to companies for their efforts as the gene is patented in their name, therefore further motivating companies and encouraging research (Arya, 2013).
Pessimistically, by allowing companies to patent genes it means they are allowed to charge whatever they’d like for screening/testing and/or treatment making it only available to those you can afford it (Rettner, 2013). An example of this is the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, (strongly linked breast and ovarian cancer) which are patented and owned by a company named Myriad. If one wanted to get tested for mutation in those genes they would only be able it get a test from Myriad. The test would cost them $3000, when the test only actually cost the company $200, but it doesn’t matter because Myriad can charge whatever they like and they don’t have to worry about competitors offering a better rate (Rettner, 2013). Secondly, patents lead to monopolization of genes. This will hinder the research development because companies with the patents are offered exclusive rights and may not allow others to look at “their” genes, which will lead to secrecy and overall less advancement (Arya, 2013). Furthermore, gene patenting will mean patient delays because if one wants a specific gene to be screened the test will only be sent to the company with the patent rights to be reviewed, this will likely result in a slow process thus possibly costing the patient their life (Genetics Generation, 2013).
In conclusion, I believe the gene-patenting craze that the HGP help start is a double-edged sword. Gene patents can help grow our never-ending quest in medical research but they should not be taken for grated and used in devious, selfish ways.
Reference
Arya, N. (2013, July 6). Pros and cons of gene patenting. Buzzle.com. Retrieved from http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-gene-patenting.html
Genetics Generation. (2013). Patenting genes: Pros and cons. Retrieved from http://knowgenetics.org/patenting-genes-pros-and-cons/
Rettner, R. (2013, April 16). 4 ways the gene patent ruling affects you . Scientific American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=4ways-the-gene-patient-r