tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post4876006960954051136..comments2023-09-29T06:00:09.242-05:00Comments on Julie Pippert: Using My Words: Should a company be allowed to hold a monopoly through a patent on crucial human genes?Julie Pipperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03169574697104642479noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-27031381464103029262010-01-29T17:05:48.993-06:002010-01-29T17:05:48.993-06:00I think the question goes beyond whether or not a ...I think the question goes beyond whether or not a company (I presume you mean "Corporation") should be allowed to patent/hold a patent on genes (human or otherwise.)<br /><br />I am actually against *anyone* being able to hold such a patent (unless the holder is God, or "The Universe", or whatever) on genes discovered. For genes that don't exist in nature, but are creations, the patent might be applicable to the modification (and almost certainly to the method used to create the modified gene), but even there I have strong ethical issues around someone "owning" as it were the gene itself.<br /><br />However, I don't see any reason to treat "companies" (which are, after all, organized groups of people) any different in this regard than I would treat an individual (whether acting as a "natural human" or as an "incorporated entity for the purposes of doing business" (and protecting his/her personal assets from lawsuits).)<br /><br />~EdT.Ed T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05901818490442310728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-15566646813083906122010-01-22T08:51:18.199-06:002010-01-22T08:51:18.199-06:00I think when one decides to patent something it sh...I think when one decides to patent something it should be because they created it, modified it or something along those lines. Taking something that occurs naturally, like another comment mentioned, is like trying to patent water, or air. They didn't create these things. How can they own them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-57279312210369930492010-01-21T20:56:40.004-06:002010-01-21T20:56:40.004-06:00Apologies in advance if this is too long.
As a ge...Apologies in advance if this is too long.<br /><br />As a genetic counselor, I've been listening to debates on both sides of this issue for awhile. It's not new, though the lawsuit is bringing more attention to it. <br /><br />It's hard for me to come down strongly on one side or the other on this. <br /><br />On one hand, the argument against patenting something "natural" seems logical. Who owns a gene? Not a company, right? But, the argument starts to fall apart when we stop treating genetic testing as exceptional and look at it in the context of general biotech/pharmaceutical practices. Just like new drugs, genetic tests take years to develop, validate, and bring to market. Just like new drugs, some people have insurance coverage for them (or money to pay out of pocket) while others don't. And just like new drugs, genetic tests are marketed to healthcare providers, which requires things like marketing campaigns and salespeople. You can say that sales are bad, but when I look at Myriad's business practices, I think they've actually done a lot to educate providers and patients and increase access to genetic testing for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer on the whole.<br /><br />On the other hand, it has been frustrating to me in clinical practice not to be able to get patients the testing they want and need because of the expense of testing and the lack of healthcare coverage for these tests. <br /><br />Genetic tests are often expensive, and that's true whether they're patented or not. It can also be determine whether a test is, in fact, appropriate for a patient because doctors with good intentions order the wrong test for the wrong patient a lot (and waste valuable healthcare dollars doing so.) As a result, insurance companies and government-sponsored insurance will often just say, "We don't cover that" rather than try to manage, for example, a preauthorization program that judges the value of the test based on the patient's circumstances, like they do with other things like surgery, medications, and other services.<br /><br />I'll confess to being a liberal who generally sides with personal liberties (and the ACLU). But on this issue, I wonder if the argument over patents is relatively minor. The larger issue, to me, is how we educate the healthcare providers and the public at large about the benefits and limitations of genetic testing, and how we help insurers make policies around this testing so that they can make reasoned decisions about coverage, rather than just saying no. <br /><br />Genetics is rapidly changing from a field that impacts a small number of patients with rare diseases (even BRCA mutations account for only 5-10% of all breast and ovarian cancer) to one that applies to all of us in the diagnosis and treatment of more common conditions. We need to sort these issues out -- and frankly, the field is evolving much faster than the policy created around it.<br /><br />The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing (SACGT) of the NIH has been working on a report of gene patenting and access issues for over 3 years, and they meet soon (early February). The expectation is that this meeting will see the approval of a report on just this issue. I'll be very interested to see what their research has produced.Nicolehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03254201803815881737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13083972.post-77258818696363737672010-01-21T11:03:19.637-06:002010-01-21T11:03:19.637-06:00Patenting genes is like patenting water. Certain &...Patenting genes is like patenting water. Certain "discoveries" in nature provide information to form knowledge. From knowledge and skills new things can be derived, and of course it should be fair to protect the property that derives from applying knowledge. Genome maps should all be in the public domain, no matter what the species.fpaynterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02859856040281795524noreply@blogger.com