Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

What's the Point in Patenting Genes?

Whatever the outcome of the ACLU vs. Myriad case, a new effort is needed to turn genetic testing into a useful diagnostic tool.

By David Ewing Duncan

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit that challenges the right of Myriad Genetics to patent a genetic test for breast cancer. The suit revives the question, should human DNA be owned?

Credit: Technology Review

For years, patent officials around the world have wrestled with how to apply existing patent law to the discovery of genes that promise to be powerful predictors of disease. The legal question has been, are these discoveries natural entities that cannot be patented, or can a diagnostic test involving a particular gene be considered intellectual property?

Currently, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has it both ways. It does not allow anyone to patent my own specific BRCA1 gene, but it allowed Myriad to patent the sequence of the gene with mutations that indicate breast cancer--which can then be compared with another patient's version of the gene to see if she carries the mutation pattern.

Now the ACLU, joined by a broad coalition of plaintiffs, including physicians, patient groups, and scientific associations, argues that this was a mistake and should be overturned.

"The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU, in a statement. "Moreover, granting patents that limit scientific research, learning, and the free flow of information violates the First Amendment."

Supporters of Myriad's patent counter that without intellectual property, companies will not spend the money that it takes to validate genetic tests for disease, which can cost millions of dollars.

Both positions, however, ignore the reality that using genetics to diagnose different diseases remains a scientifically immature technology. Just last month, the New England Journal of Medicinenoted that thousands of DNA markers have been discovered and associated with ailments such as diabetes and heart disease, but these markers have yet to be clinically tested to see if they are real predictors of disease.

Story continues below

So far, Myriad's BRCA1 test is one of only a handful that have been clinically validated for determining a risk factor for a common disease, in part because the company spent years gathering data to support the usefulness of the test and convincing doctors to use it.

Most other DNA-based diagnostic tests have a fairly narrow application. For example, one such test is used in conjunction with the drug Herceptin for breast cancer (which only works for women who overexpress the HER2 gene). Other DNA tests are used to identify rare genetic disorders such as Tay-Sachs and Huntington's disease. Even the Myriad test identifies a rare version of breast cancer occurring in less than 10 percent of the 200,000 breast-cancer patients diagnosed each year.

Comments

  • Patenting Genes
    patenting genes should be and once was illegal(unpatenable).

    anything that can self replicated no matter how big or small even if it is not biological, should not be legal to paten.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    hellofu
    05/27/2009
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
  • gene patents
    How can someone own me(my genes) without paying a royality to everyone with that gene. Plus, I did not give permission to use my gene.

    And lastly,I consider my genes puplic domain. And anyone can use them to benefit mankind.

    There is nothing wrong with patenting a test, but not the gene.

    And to pay 3000 dollars for a test that has questionable predictability is unethical, if not downright fraud.

    ron hansing
    Rate this comment: 12345

    rhansing
    05/27/2009
    Posts:35
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • Patenting Everything?
    Imagine if UC Berkeley had patented Californium and Berkelium instead of just naming them...The potential for profit staggers the mind (not that UCB suffers from lack of patents). Its one thing to create and patent a new compound, but patenting a discovery seems to lead to interesting possibilities.   Sort of like claiming the new world for the King of Spain-- hard on the current inhabitants.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    garylynn
    05/27/2009
    Posts:4
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • The issue must be nuanced. There are genes, and then there are genes.
    It's not so easy, as saying "patenting genes", and then taking a black and white approach. That is foolish.

    The issue must be nuanced.

    Some genes are designed from the ground up, as in an engineering project. Other genes are tweaked/modified, which again takes a lot of R&D resources. These kind of projects should have their IP patentable.

    On the other hand, natural and ubiquitous genes should not be patentable, because they are just products of nature.

    Please educate yourselves, before mouthing off simplistic stuff.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    05/28/2009
    Posts:400
    Avg Rating:
    3/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Making 3D Maps on the Move
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.