Patented Genes
April 4, 2010 5:00 PM
Should companies be able to own human genes? Morley Safer examines the idea of biotech firms patenting genes for profit.
Should Firms Be Able To Own Your Genes?
Web Extras
Scroll Left Scroll Right
Recent Segments
-
Taking down a cartel, Why are glasses expensive?, Lionel Messi 43:27 June 16, 2013
-
Lionel Messi and the ascent of Barca soccer 13:23 June 16, 2013
-
Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? 13:01 June 16, 2013
-
Taking down Colombia's "super cartel" 13:03 June 16, 2013
60 Minutes Overtime is a weekly web show that begins where the weekly television broadcast ends
-
Soccer academy La Masia: A model for the U.S.?
June 16, 2013
-
Drug traffickers' vehicle of choice
June 16, 2013
-
Summer Series: My favorite 60 Minutes story
June 16, 2013
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 63 Commentsand ashley stevens' post which called jonas salk's comment disingenuous is about as disingenuous as it gets! the fact IS: he didn't try to patent it. speculation about why or his true intentions is just that, SPECULATION! there is an ongoing debate about whether the brca gene is patentable, but it didn't stop these sleazy bastards from trying. and in the first place, a vaccine is a far cry from a gene that someone is born with. a vaccine is in fact an artificial creation, and is not part of a living organism; something which has existed possibly longer than **** sapiens! comparing the two isn't like comparing apples to oranges, it's like comparing apples to artificial apple scented floor wax. who do YOU pimp for, ashley?
We will never know whether he would have applied for a patent if it had been patentable. I suspect he would.
Did you know that you can sing "Happy Birthday" in your home only because you have special permission to do so? I'd post a picture of a Mountie but that belongs to Disney.
Thanks for your reply and comment about how genes are "marked off" in a chromosome by promoters etc.
Two responses:
1) "Isolated" means isolated. You can't take a gene in someone's body and put it in a bacteria and use it to manufacture proteins. Isolated genes are useful for industry - "your genes" are are not useful for industry. They are different things.
part 2 in second comment...
Thanks for your reply and comment about how genes are "marked off" in a chromosome by promoters etc.
Two responses:
1) "Isolated" means isolated. You can't take a gene in someone's body and put it in a bacteria and use it to manufacture proteins. Isolated genes are useful for industry - "your genes" are are not useful for industry. They are different things.
2) The patent office itself has said that patents on isolated genes do not apply to "your genes" - to genes in a human body. See this document: www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf This is the Federal Register, where the patent office published comments and responses to its new (at that time, in 2001) comments on its guidelines for patent examiners. The new guidelines made it clear that "gene patents" were patentable subject matter and described how patent examiners should evaluate patent applications for genes.
In any case, people did object to the guidelines, and had fears that patent holders would try to enforce "gene patents" against individual people -- exactly the scary "red herring" that 60 Minutes report has waved around.
The document is long. The stuff I am talking about is on the second page, in "(2) Comment". That section runs from the first column to the third column on that page. Describing comments the patent office received, the document says: "These comments urge the USPTO not to issue patents for genes on the ground that genes are products of nature. Others state that naturally occurring DNAs are part of our heritage and are not inventions. Another comment expressed concern that a person whose body includes a patented gene could be guilty of patent infringement." As part of its response, the patent office said: "A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ??includes?? a patented gene could
infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented,isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form." This text runs from the bottom of 2nd column to the 3rd column. I hope that clarifies things.
Two responses:
1) "Isolated" means isolated. You can't take a gene in someone's body and put it in a bacteria and use it to manufacture proteins. Isolated genes are useful for industry - "your genes" are are not useful for industry. They are different things.
2) The patent office itself has said that patents on isolated genes do not apply to "your genes" - to genes in a human body. See this document: www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/utilexmguide.pdf This is the Federal Register, where the patent office published comments and responses to its new (at that time, in 2001) comments on its guidelines for patent examiners. The new guidelines made it clear that "gene patents" were patentable subject matter and described how patent examiners should evaluate patent applications for genes.
In any case, people did object to the guidelines, and had fears that patent holders would try to enforce "gene patents" against individual people -- exactly the scary "red herring" that 60 Minutes report has waved around.
The document is long. The stuff I am talking about is on the second page, in "(2) Comment". That section runs from the first column to the third column on that page. Describing comments the patent office received, the document says: "These comments urge the USPTO not to issue patents for genes on the ground that genes are products of nature. Others state that naturally occurring DNAs are part of our heritage and are not inventions. Another comment expressed concern that a person whose body includes a patented gene could be guilty of patent infringement." As part of its response, the patent office said: "A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ??includes?? a patented gene could
infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented,isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form." This text runs from the bottom of 2nd column to the 3rd column. I hope that clarifies things.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next »
See all 63 Comments