Outside of the courtroom, the debate over gene patents is still a lively one.
Proponents of gene patents argue that the system stimulates research, as scientists can retain the rights and credit for their work rather than having the results of years in the lab simply stolen by another company once findings are published. The retention of rights, they say, also provides research companies a financial incentive to explore genetic materials, as they can be assured a profit for at least 20 years from their efforts. Without gene patents, proponents argue, very little genetic research would ever take place.
They also maintain that the patenting system prevents duplication of efforts across research institutes. Once facility A has patented a finding, it becomes public knowledge and facility B does not need to head down the same research path. This component of transparency, which is integral to the patenting process, also eliminates secrecy and provides scientists access to each other's findings in a way that can propel research further, according to supporters of the gene patenting process.
The primary argument used by opponents of gene patenting is that the genetic material inside our bodies belongs to humankind, not a lab, and that the regulation prohibiting the patenting of "products of nature" certainly applies in this case. They also assert that once one lab owns a patent on a particular gene or sequence of genes, research at other labs will be hampered because of the fees that must be paid to the patent holder for use of their work in related research areas. The American Medical Association (AMA) is on this side of the issue, stating that they oppose gene patenting because "it has the potential to inhibit access to genetic testing for patients and hinder research on genetic disease" [source: AMA].
The financial component to gene patenting also has implications for the consumer. If one and only one company is allowed to patent a particular test or treatment, they effectively own a monopoly for the 20-year-term of the patent and can charge whatever they like for it. What's perhaps even more troubling is the idea that without any competition in the marketplace, a genetic patent holder wouldn't necessarily feel the need to improve their product or respond to consumer feedback.
Perhaps the only thing that is clear on this issue is that just like the human body itself, the world of gene patenting is extraordinarily complicated and the debates and legal challenges it inspires are likely to continue for years to come.
- AMA. "Gene Patenting." (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science/genetics-molecular-medicine/related-policy-topics/gene-patenting.page
- Cook-Degan. "Gene Patents." The Hastings Center. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2174
- Choi, Hyowon. "Gene Patenting." Mt. Holyoke College. Dec. 19, 2006. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~choi20h/regulations.html
- Darnovsky, Jesse, and Reynolds Marcy. "The Battle to Patent Your Genes: The Meaning of the Myriad Case." The American Interest. Sept. 2009, (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.the-american-interest.com/article-bd.cfm?piece=653
- DeGiulio, James. "The Genomic Research and Accessibility Act: More Science Fiction than Fact." Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property. Volume 8, Issue 2. Spring 2010. (Sept. 29, 2011) http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/njtip/v8/n2/6/
- Halley, Drew. "Who Owns You? 20% of the Genes in Your Body are Patented." Singularity. Aug. 11, 2010. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://singularityhub.com/2010/08/11/who-owns-you-20-of-the-genes-in-your-body-are-patented-video/
- Lebacqz, Karen. "Gene Patenting." Ecyclopedia of Science and Religion. 2003. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3404200224.html
- Lewis, Ricki. "Living Things (All Rights Reserved)." Columbia University. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.1/lewis.html
- Lovegren, Stefan. "One-Fifth of Human Genes Have Been Patented, Study Reveals." National Geographic. Oct. 13, 2005. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
- Meek, James. "Beginner's guide to gene patents." The Guardian. Nov. 15, 2000. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/nov/15/genetics.theissuesexplained
- Merz, Mildred K. Cho and Jon F. "What Are Gene Patents and Why Are People Worried about Them?" National Institutes of Health. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2220018/
- Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "Human Genome Project Information: Genes and Patenting." (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml
- Pollack, Andrew, "Ruling Upholds Gene Patent in Cancer Test." The New York Times. July 29, 2011. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/business/gene-patent-in-cancer-test-upheld-by-appeals-panel.html
- Schwartz, Andrew Pollack and John. "Judge Invalidates Human Gene Patent." The New York Times. Mar. 29, 2010. (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html
- United States Patent and Trademark Office. "Patent Full-Text Database." (Sept. 22, 2011) http://patft.uspto.gov/
- USPAT. "Significant Historical Patents of the United States." (Sept. 22, 2011) http://www.uspat.com/historical/