Soon digestion will be patented
November 26, 2011 6:24 PM   Subscribe

Big Pharma is trying to patent you! This is an article talking about some of the ways big pharma is working on patenting human genes and tissues.

I found this quote to be one of the more disturbing points from the article:

"HW: Yes. Lacks and Moore's vulnerability was a bit different, but it was the same principle. And today, we're all vulnerable to that. We're vulnerable because if we undergo surgery in certain hospitals, such as the Harvard University hospitals or Duke and a number of others, we are given a consent form to sign, which will give a private corporation, in many cases Ardais [Corp.], the rights to any tissues or cells taken from our body, often described in the consent form as "discarded and worthless." But they're not worthless or the corporation wouldn't have bought them."

How much control over our genes and DNA do we have now? Do we need to do anything to counter this trend of biological patents or is this for the better in the long run?
posted by troll on a pony (7 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: This needs to be a little less of an editorial and a little more of something neat you want to share with people. -- jessamyn



 
The recently enacted America Invents Act prohibits the patenting of any invention "directed to or encompassing a human being," which is basically a codification of longstanding PTO policy.

A gene patent is not a patent on a gene per se; it cannot be infringed by a human being simply existing. Such patents typically claim isolated, purified DNA molecules or genetically modified non-human organisms (e.g. a bacterium engineered to produce a human protein). So it's a little alarmist to speak of "Big Pharma trying to patent you."

Much of the article deals with people not being compensated for the use of their unusual genes or tissues, but that's not unusual in the IP world. For example, employees typically sign contracts obligating them to assign their inventions to their employers. Employees who discover patentable inventions typically don't see any additional compensation for it. This is just capitalism: the capitalist class owns the means of production (in this case the means of research) and so captures the profits.
posted by jedicus at 6:35 PM on November 26, 2011 [4 favorites]


The commodification of all under the sun continues at a brisk, wondrous pace. Exciting opportunities for the discerning among us.
posted by Shit Parade at 6:42 PM on November 26, 2011 [1 favorite]


After the incident on Thursday, neither I nor family members would recommend patenting me.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:05 PM on November 26, 2011


Umm, Myriad Genetic's patents covering breast cancer tests were restored on appeal, jedicus. Yes, they're suing the PTO, but basically this crap is patentable. Is the America Invents Act gonna change that?
posted by jeffburdges at 7:05 PM on November 26, 2011


I'm well aware of the Myriad case (which, by the way, is not yet fully decided: an en banc rehearing or a Supreme Court hearing are likely). The result in that case thus far does not contradict anything I said. The claims at issue in that case deal with isolated, purified DNA and diagnostic methods. A person cannot infringe those claims simply by existing.
posted by jedicus at 7:13 PM on November 26, 2011


I usually try not to comment in my own posts but I am very curious about how much control I have over "me". If I went in for surgery and some corporation found I had a gene they could patent and created a drug/therapy with it, could I make that gene open source later? Or since it had already been patented would I not be able to do anything with my own genes?
posted by troll on a pony at 7:19 PM on November 26, 2011


Much of the article deals with people not being compensated for the use of their unusual genes or tissues, but that's not unusual in the IP world. For example, employees typically sign contracts obligating them to assign their inventions to their employers. Employees who discover patentable inventions typically don't see any additional compensation for it.

Employees are working on behalf of corporations. Patients have considerably less leeway here, and usually themselves pay for care.

This is just capitalism: the capitalist class owns the means of production (in this case the means of research) and so captures the profits.

It is, and it is also bad as unfettered capitalism can often be. Apologizes if you intended me to recognize that unmentioned, these days, who can be sure.
posted by JHarris at 7:43 PM on November 26, 2011


« Older Cigarette smoking: an underused tool?   |   Azealia Banks 212 Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments