4 ms·
Some would argue that allowing a patent on a naturally-occurring gene is the silly part there.
by couchand 5y ago
Some would argue that allowing a patent on a naturally-occurring gene is the silly part there.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoThis is the basis of nearly all of genetic technology
- colechristensen 5y agoThe problem is how trivial most of the things are to create. Take a cell line (e. coli, a yeast, some animal cell line), combine together the target gene, a few boilerplate add-ons specific to the host cell, and send it off to get manufactured. A first prototype can be engineered in an afternoon. Then somebody patents it, the same thing from every species they can think of, and nobody gets to do that same thing for decades. The process being so low effort and obvious these days is the core of the problem with patentability. "I put X gene into Y, and it worked" can be done for so many X and Y and anybody with, say, a graduate degree in the appropriate field can do it quite quickly.
- s1artibartfast 5y agoI agree that there is room for productive discussion around what should be patentable, but you are greatly over simplifying the process. Take a biologic developed for cancer treatment for example. A tremendous amount of work goes into determining what gene does useful work, and Much more work goes into showing that it is safe and effective for treating disease. I generally agree that simply reproducing a gene found in nature should not be patentable. However, most genetic patents are more specific and take a different form. Instead of "put X gene into Y", they are use "X gene, to make Y protein, to treat Z". Figuring out what protein can treat Z, is an invention, takes hard work, and should be rewarded. Legally speaking, just putting X gene into Y, isn't patentable because it fails the non-obviousness test. Doing something new with known methods to yield predictable results is not valid.