> Ok, I'm a genetics student. This will have real effect on my work in the
> future, and this is one of the hot topics we debate between outselves.
>
> My take is DEFINATELY NO to patenting genes themselves, only therapies
> and drugs DERIVED from genes. Why? Simply this...
>
> If a sequence is patented, then the company that has patented has no
> obligation to release the sequence to the public domain, and this is
> currently holding up some of the Human Genome Project (although it seems
> that this will be overcome).
>
Actually, your assumption is incorrect. As a part of the patent process.
The gene sequence must be part of the claims in order for the patent to be
enforceable. All you need to do is download it. They may not give you a
clone, but you can make one with PCR in a short period of time.
> Then, there's this: If I come up with a use for a gene sequence
> that you've
> patented, that is NOTHING AT ALL to do with your patent - some genes
> have multiple roles - then I have to pay you money, even though I may be
> researching in a different field. Applications, yes. The genes themselves,
> NO!
Again, see the posts on utility. I can only speak to US patents, but I know
that we have to claim function and application. The issue is how broad this
claim should be. Right now the claims allowed by the US PTO are almost
universal for any particular gene.
I guess the reason I tried to start this as a point of discussion is that
the reaction (even among scientists) seems to be a knee-jerk one and not
based on facts or with any thought to how such a change would affect the
current development of therapeutic products. The majority of the proposals,
given the pharmacoeconomics of the situation would wreck an industry that
has served us pretty well.
JeffF
