The excerpt below is from Michael Crichton’s bestselling book “Next”. Here Michael Crichton makes it very clear that he believes genes should not be patented. Is he correct? Does gene patenting stunt progress by limiting our ability to use genes? Or does it accelerate advancement by giving researchers and corporations more incentive to identify and isolate genes?

“Stop patenting genes. Gene patents might have looked reasonable twenty years ago, but the field has changed in ways nobody could have predicted. Today we have plenty of evidence that gene patents are unnecessary, unwise, and harmful.
There is great confusion about gene patents. Many observers conflate a call to end gene patents with anticapitalist and anti-private property sentiments. It is nothing of the sort. It is perfectly reasonable for industry to seek a mechanism that will ensure a profit on productive investment. Such a mechanism implies a restriction on competition involving a created product. However, such protection does not imply that genes themselves should be patented. On the contrary, gene patents contradict long-established traditions of intellectual property protection. (…)

Because it’s a patent on a fact of nature, a gene patent becomes an undeserved monopoly. Ordinarily, patent protection enables me to protect my invention but encourages others to make their own versions. My iPod doesn’t prevent you from making a digital audio player. My patented mousetrap is wood, but your titanium mousetrap is allowed.
This is not what happens with gene patents. The patent consists of pure information already existing in nature. Because there has been no invention, no one can innovate any other use of the patent without violating the patent itself, so further innovation is closed. It’s like allowing somebody to patent noses. You couldn’t make eyeglasses, Kleenex, nasal sprays, masks, makeup, or perfume because they all rely on some aspect of noses. You could put suntan lotion on your body, but not on your nose, because any modification of your nose would violate the patent on noses. Chefs could be sued for making fragrant dishes unless they paid the nose royalty. And so on. Of course, we would all agree that a patent on noses is absurd. If everyone has one, how can anyone own it? Gene patents are absurd for the same reason.”

 

Michael Crichton argues that genes are a “fact of nature”, so it does not make sense to patent them. The official guidelines of the Patent Trademark Office disagree with this assertion. In these guidelines they state the following:

“An isolated and purified DNA molecule that has the same sequence as a naturally occurring gene is eligible for a patent because (1) an excised gene is eligible for a patent as a composition of matter or as an article of manufacture because that DNA molecule does not occur in that isolated form in nature, or (2) synthetic DNA preparations are eligible for patents because their purified state is different from the naturally occurring compound.”

 

The patent office justifies patenting genes by saying that isolated genes do not occur in nature. Thus, being able to discern the function of a gene requires invention. There is some validity in asserting that isolating a gene deserves a patent. Since every gene is different, the process of isolating genes is lengthy and varies significantly. Additionally, the proteins produced by the isolated gene must be isolated so that the function of the gene can be determined. This is usually a very difficult task. It is easy to understand why patents might be needed as an incentive for spending the amount of time and money that is necessary for accomplishing this type of research.

However, as Michael Crichton points out, there is an intuitive ridiculousness to having ownership of a natural component. He uses ownership of the nose as an example. It would be to silly have ownership of the nose and everything that is associated with the nose. Biological processes often involve multiple genes, so owning a gene could entail partial ownership of multiple processes. If one or more of these processes were important, this ownership could significantly slow down the practical application of these discoveries.
My opinion is that gene patenting is currently beneficial, because it is spurring new discoveries about genes. But, I think in future years gene patenting will be detrimental. Individuals should receive credit for discovering and isolating genes, but receiving ownership for 20 years could significantly slow down progress. I think if gene patenting is to remain, the period of ownership should be reduced to a couple of years.

Links: