Biol 518: Presentations 2-26--03b

Biotechnology Presentations

Home | Site Map | Syllabus | Schedule | Presentations | Links

.

Presentation on DNA, Central Dogma & Evolution 2/26/03
Gene Patents
Steve, Mark, Krista, Laurinda

Ethical issues:

1.Who owns life?
Can life be owned?
Is it morally right to grant ownership?

2. What impact will patents have on medical care?

Gene testing
Gene therapy

Opponents of patents say:

1. DNA is natural. It cannot be owned. Genes are discoveries, not inventions.
2. Patents create powerful monopolies that can boost costs for tests and drugs based on genes. (see example BRCA-1 gene testing --$2400 to screen, $500 for subsequent)

3. Might discourage research in areas that have existing patents.

4. Public access to knowledge (ability of researchers to build on previous work) will be limited by patents- harm to research environment. (Possibly creating distrust among researchers.)

Proponents of patents say:

1. Isolated DNA does not occur naturally and without isolating and cloning gene cannot be sequenced- therefore it is an invention.
2. No patents could lead to decreased incentive to do research or invest- Research would progress at a slower pace.

3. Without patents, anyone can use inventions without restrictions - with patents, the public can hold one person (owner) responsible for unethical conduct.

Background information needed:

What does patenting or owning of genes imply?

Does a patent on a gene mean a patent on the resulting protein? (E.g. CCR5 receptor)

Experts/stakeholders:

Public

Researchers

Investors

Solutions:

Proposed by the Nuffield Council of Bioethics:

The Committee agrees that the isolation of genes does not occur naturally; therefore it is not a discovery, but an invention. However:

1. Stricter guidelines when granting patents- patents should be rarely be granted
2. Patents based on claims of diagnosis should be rare (finding link between gene and disease is not an invention); effects on gene testing.

3. Gene therapy- only inventions that invent safe and effective methods of getting genes into tissue should be patented.

4. No speculation of what the gene codes for - unknown medical value. (See example on receptor CCR5)

5. O.K to patent genes whose protein products are used directly as medicines (insulin); patent right extends to only 1 protein.

References:

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/91350.stm

2. Williams, Nigel. "New thinking on gene patents." Current Biology, (2002)Volume12, 3 September 2002: R577-R578 Science direct. <www.sciencedirect.com>

3. www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/wol/key_issues.shtml

4. www.healthmatters.org.uk/stories/sexton31.html

.

Home | Site Map | Syllabus | Schedule | Presentations | Links

Updated 3/10/03 by thatcher@sonoma.edu

	Biotechnology Presentations
	Home \| Site Map \| Syllabus \| Schedule \| Presentations \| Links

	.
	Presentation on DNA, Central Dogma & Evolution 2/26/03 Gene Patents Steve, Mark, Krista, Laurinda Ethical issues: 1.Who owns life? Can life be owned? Is it morally right to grant ownership? 2. What impact will patents have on medical care? Gene testing Gene therapy Opponents of patents say: 1. DNA is natural. It cannot be owned. Genes are discoveries, not inventions. 2. Patents create powerful monopolies that can boost costs for tests and drugs based on genes. (see example BRCA-1 gene testing --$2400 to screen, $500 for subsequent) 3. Might discourage research in areas that have existing patents. 4. Public access to knowledge (ability of researchers to build on previous work) will be limited by patents- harm to research environment. (Possibly creating distrust among researchers.) Proponents of patents say: 1. Isolated DNA does not occur naturally and without isolating and cloning gene cannot be sequenced- therefore it is an invention. 2. No patents could lead to decreased incentive to do research or invest- Research would progress at a slower pace. 3. Without patents, anyone can use inventions without restrictions - with patents, the public can hold one person (owner) responsible for unethical conduct. Background information needed: What does patenting or owning of genes imply? Does a patent on a gene mean a patent on the resulting protein? (E.g. CCR5 receptor) Experts/stakeholders: Public Researchers Investors Solutions: Proposed by the Nuffield Council of Bioethics: The Committee agrees that the isolation of genes does not occur naturally; therefore it is not a discovery, but an invention. However: 1. Stricter guidelines when granting patents- patents should be rarely be granted 2. Patents based on claims of diagnosis should be rare (finding link between gene and disease is not an invention); effects on gene testing. 3. Gene therapy- only inventions that invent safe and effective methods of getting genes into tissue should be patented. 4. No speculation of what the gene codes for - unknown medical value. (See example on receptor CCR5) 5. O.K to patent genes whose protein products are used directly as medicines (insulin); patent right extends to only 1 protein. References: 1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/91350.stm 2. Williams, Nigel. "New thinking on gene patents." Current Biology, (2002)Volume12, 3 September 2002: R577-R578 Science direct. <www.sciencedirect.com> 3. www.med.upenn.edu/bioethic/wol/key_issues.shtml 4. www.healthmatters.org.uk/stories/sexton31.html .
	Home \| Site Map \| Syllabus \| Schedule \| Presentations \| Links

Biotechnology Presentations

Presentation on DNA, Central Dogma & Evolution 2/26/03