U.S. patent laws were put in place to encourage innovation and advancements in technology.  But what happens when patents actually stymie scientific discoveries?  This is the case in gene patenting, argues Professor David Koepsell in an article on www.IPwatchdog.com.

 Under the United States’ intellectual property laws, genes have been patented since the mid 1990’s when the movement to sequence the entire human genome began.  Celera patented a number of genes in addition to the technology they developed to do the actual sequencing.  “Its ‘shotgun’ approach to sequencing remains a vital, patentable innovation that has changed the way gene sequencing is done,” states Koepsell.  The technique meets all the requirements for a patentable technology; it was new, inventive, useful and non-obvious.
 
But do the genes that were patented meet these criteria?  Koepsell claims, “Parents all over the world are reproducing patented genes, technically violating the patents on those genes because they haven’t sought permission and aren’t paying royalties.”  Genes are a part of nature and cannot be patented as they belong to everyone in the world.
 
 In addition to the absurdity of patenting a natural, unmodified gene, Koepsell argues the gene patenting actually stifles not only scientific discovery but the ability of people suffering from certain diseases to receive the most effect and cost efficient health care.  Examples of this are the gene causing Canavan’s Disease and the ‘breast cancer’ genes.  These genes are ‘owned’ by Miami Children’s Hospital and Myriad respectively.  Tests for these genes cost more than their market value due to the royalties owed to the institutions.  Because of this, fewer hospitals offer the test and fewer patients are able to pay for them.  In addition to the difficulties of the patients, scientists are limited in their work on discoveries of new and better treatments for these diseases due to patent restrictions.

 Koepsell makes a compelling argument in his article that gene patenting accomplishes the opposite of its intention in that “awarding patents to non-new discoveries does not encourage innovation, and … actually stifles downstream innovation.”

If you are interested in further reading, Professor David Koepsell has written a book, Who Owns You?, on this topic.