4 ms·

I always marveled at how you could patent genes, which seemed to me to be "naturally occurring phenomena", which is supposedly not patentable. It is even more p

I always marveled at how you could patent genes, which seemed to me to be "naturally occurring phenomena", which is supposedly not patentable. It is even more preposterous when you consider that plant patents specifically exclude tuber plants because the root that would be patented is also food, and the patent office was too worried about preventing people access to food. If you zoom out, though, and consider why patents exist in the first place, the idea that a research institution deserves to profit from the fruits of their research money is not that absurd. I think the question is not whether patents should be issued for biotechnology research, but instead what the best method is to protect investment in biotechnology research while not retarding future work. Also, on a side note, patents may be infringed upon for research purposes. This is not holding back research, it is only slowing commercialized tests (or maybe just increasing their cost). There is nothing to suggest that the licensing terms offered by the patentee are exorbitant... The patentee is merely trying to recoup some of their investment in the commercialized result of their research.

blurry 17y ago
Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing. How does that not hold back research, or merely "slow down" testing?
- elecengin 17y ago
  The article is very misleading. Researchers in many cases do not need to request permission if the research is focused on a new drug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption
gustavo_duarte 17y ago
Guaranteeing profit is not why patents exist in the first place. They exist "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It is not about profit, but rather about overall progress and benefits for society at large. I think there's a good argument to be made that the current system now falls short of this goal and new rules are required.
- tjic 17y ago
  > Guaranteeing profit is not why patents exist in the first place. They exist "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." ...and the way that they promote the progress of science and technology is to put a PROFIT MOTIVE in place, so that folks have more effective reasons than pure altruism to engage in research. Yeah, YOU might dedicate your career to finding important genes, instead of launching a software startup, because you care that much about other people. ...but what VC is going to pay for your lab and staff if he can't make a profit off of it? Bottom line: intellectual property is a government created kind of property, but it aligns incentives, and results in the progress of both science and technology.
  - mynameishere 17y ago
    ...but what VC is going to pay for your lab and staff if he can't make a profit off of it? Plenty would, but you would have to use the more traditional method of patenting called "never releasing your research".

blurry 17y ago

Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing. How does that not hold back research, or merely "slow down" testing?

elecengin 17y ago
The article is very misleading. Researchers in many cases do not need to request permission if the research is focused on a new drug: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_exemption

gustavo_duarte 17y ago

Guaranteeing profit is not why patents exist in the first place. They exist "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It is not about profit, but rather about overall progress and benefits for society at large. I think there's a good argument to be made that the current system now falls short of this goal and new rules are required.

tjic 17y ago
> Guaranteeing profit is not why patents exist in the first place. They exist "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." ...and the way that they promote the progress of science and technology is to put a PROFIT MOTIVE in place, so that folks have more effective reasons than pure altruism to engage in research. Yeah, YOU might dedicate your career to finding important genes, instead of launching a software startup, because you care that much about other people. ...but what VC is going to pay for your lab and staff if he can't make a profit off of it? Bottom line: intellectual property is a government created kind of property, but it aligns incentives, and results in the progress of both science and technology.
- mynameishere 17y ago
  ...but what VC is going to pay for your lab and staff if he can't make a profit off of it? Plenty would, but you would have to use the more traditional method of patenting called "never releasing your research".