Can Corporations Own Your DNA?

(CBS)  It's hard to believe, but private companies hold the patent rights to some of the genes in your body. The companies say the patents help them develop new treatments for serious diseases. But this week, a group of cancer patients and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit claiming the patents put them in danger, reports CBS News correspondent Wyatt Andrews

After facing and surviving breast cancer, Genae Gerard simply had to know more. A widely available genetic test - known as the BRAC test - revealed that she carried the gene BRCA 2, which also put her at higher risk for ovarian cancer.

When she tried to look for an alternate test for a second opinion, she learned no that other tests are permitted.

"You cannot get a second opinion on the BRAC testing because there's only one company that does it," Gerard said. "That's the problem."

That one company, Utah-based Myriad, doesn't just own the test. It was able to patent the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 - the genes most often linked to breast and ovarian cancer. And owning the patent essentially means that Myriad owns the genes themselves.

"Common sense should tell everybody that it's wrong to allow a private company to own a body part," ACLU attorney Chris Hansen said.

In what could be a landmark lawsuit, the ACLU is challenging the private ownership of body parts.

Today an estimated 20 percent of all human genes have been patented, including some linked to Alzheimer's disease and cystic fibrosis, and the lawsuit argues that private ownership is restricting - not helping - the invention of new therapies.

"The effect of this gene patent has been to stifle medical treatment and medical research," Hansen said.

In a statement to CBS News, Myriad argues the opposite, saying that the patent system that protects genetic inventions helps "a large number of lifesaving pharmaceutical and diagnostic products."

Legally, this could be a free-for-all.

While the courts and Congress are inclined to protect genuine invention, genes exist naturally in the body. And if you can't patent natural products like water, the argument goes, how can you patent DNA?

[Elliander]

This is a gross misapplication of the spirit behind Patent laws. In practice, a company may patent a METHOD or a PRODUCT. If a company develops a method for using BRCA2, then it may do so, because that is a method or a product. The problem we are facing now is that the cataloging of genes in and of itself is being treated as a product. The problem here is that there is no incentive for the company to then take what they know and develop a product. They simply have to analyze the genetic information that already exists, apply for a patent, and wait for someone else to develop the product. In such a scenario, the inventor of an actual product would end up paying royalties to someone who only cataloged. It does make sense to give some kind of rights to a company that goes through the efforts of mapping human genes - maybe allow a system of compulsory licensing to another inventor who uses this data - but they should be required to file for patents on methods for using that gene independently of the gene itself.

Beyond that, there needs to be serious consideration for how United States Patent laws should be adjusted in consideration for biotechnology. For example, in the case of Monsanto owning GM Crops they have demonstrated the right to prevent farmers from growing the crop without a patent regardless of how the plant established itself. One could take that a step further. Suppose a company creates a new gene therapy drug that cures cancer using a new gene they created. So your DNA changes with this new DNA. Could that company then go on to say that you must pay them a royalty for each child you have who inherits that gene from you? Or Sue, say, a woman who didn't know her husband had gene therapy, for patent violations? That may sound like a crazy sci-fi scenario, but every precedent set would seem to allow just this sort of thing to happen.

Beyond that, to me, it's a moral question. Why should anyone own any part of me? And why would the fact that it is a gene be any different than with a normal invention? Even Prosthetics, which someone actually would have a Patent for, would still allow me to choose who might repair my limb. So why would something I am born with be any different?

[Elliander]

According to the ACLU website, BRCA1 was identified by the Human Genome Project and cost American tax payers 5 million dollars to identify. In fact, the entire Human Genome was identified. So now that I know that it seems like an issue of... well... they didn't even catalog the information. It's even more ridiculous than I thought.

[benwantsauniquename]

Theoretically I guess a company could invite Wolverine (I know he's not real) in for a chat and then steal his DNA (off a coffee cup or whatever) and not give him any money for, or rights to it?
As far as I'm concerned even if you were paid for your DNA because it has some unusual properties it should be treated as the reporters treat you, an "exclusive". But not passing of ownership.
I don't think we should be taking that kinda thing up the tailpipe because chemists have student loans to pay off either DreamRaker. It's not as easy to steal all that information as it is in Mission Impossible ya know

Good luck lawyer Hansen! Who ever thought they'd be on the side of a lawyer?

[ayatoldya]

This is blatantly wrong. So wrong that even a half-witted attorney could argue the invalidity of these gene patents. After all, these gene sequences are open source and at no single moment in time did these companies have sole or full control over them.

Patents are often contested and often a patent is removed. In the case of a genome of a living creature, the patent is a ruse, a smoke screen; just waiting for it to be knocked down in court.

This type of patent is akin to putting a patent on a satellite picture of San Francisco.

[scyouth]

The late Michael Chrichton wrote a book on this very same subject - "Next." As all of his books this one is incredibly well researched and believable - excellent reading.

In my view, while the company can patent the test and whatever drugs they develop for treatment, they should NOT be able to patent the genes themselves. It would be like a company with an anti-baldness drug patenting hair.

[ToolMangler1]

Upon birth, the child should be granted a trademark, copyright and a patent - and instead of a birth certificate, incorporation. Everyone would be listed online in the Business to Business pages.
Posted by caldwellptr at 5:17 PM : May 14, 2009



I agree 1000%

[inachu1]

One day I can envision a company refusing a person to quit working there when they say they can't quit ," You are company property. We own all rights to your DNA." Company guards prevent you from leaving and your office phone has been disabled and your cell phone removed from your possesion.

The day this happens is the day the CEO's of that company need their children taken away from them and remove all parental rights and visitations and take away their passports and put them under house arrest for the rest of their lives with no TV and no internet connection.

[caldwellptr]

Upon birth, the child should be granted a trademark, copyright and a patent - and instead of a birth certificate, incorporation. Everyone would be listed online in the Business to Business pages.

[mcontreras4]

I don't believe that this patent will be upheld. One website concerning patentable items specifically says "You also can't patent a natural product, even if it takes a lot of work to discover it, as might be the case with a rare medicinal herb." If the company only discovered the genes and did not do anything to create a new product, it should not be patented.

[inesje88]

Please watch "The Corporation", part 16. In 1987 the US Patent Office ruled that you can patent anything except a full human being. The entire series is interesting but part 16 can't be missed.

[DreamRaker]

I can understand why many are concerned with the idea of patenting genetic information. Keep in mind, however, that it costs tens of millions of dollars to do the research leading to the discovery of defective genes that cause many horrific diseases. If the new knowledge cannot be protected in some manner, then an unscrupulous foreign company can pirate that knowledge for their own financial gain without the huge investment in research that was required for the discovery. So, if there is no way to protect the initial investment in R&D, there is no incentive to do the work in the first place, and all of humanity suffers. Research does not come for free. It requires the dedicated efforts of many highly skilled professionals, who also have bills to pay (maybe including a college loan) and families to raise.

Traditionally, the international patent system has been used to protect new knowledge for a certain length of time, usually 17-20 years, after which that knowledge goes into the public domain and is then free for use by all. If not that system, then what does the CLU and others suggest?

[Elliander]

Except in this case the entire Human Genome project was funded by American tax dollars. Many different companies and groups contributed to this project. I don't think any rights should be given to any company over even a product whose research was paid for in whole by the American people... Isn't it kind of silly that the Patent office knowingly issues patents to people they know did not invent nor discover, simply on the grounds that they were the first to the patent office? By that logic, I could copyright the Bible and make the Church pay me royalties.

[paddyhayes]

I'm going to get a patent on shyte.

Every time anyone takes a crap, I'm charging a buck and half for patent infringement.