You might be surprised to learn that it is legal to patent a human gene. I was. It is estimated that approximately 20% of the roughly 24,000 genes in the human DNA sequence have been patented. This has touched off a bioethics issue and spawned a lawsuit designed to test whether a natural substance such as a gene can be patented for protected private use. You can read a CNN article on it here.
The American Civil Liberties Union has brought suit on behalf of breast cancer survivor Lisbeth Ceriani against the Patent and Trade Office and Myriad Genetics over patents on two genes: BRCA1 and BRCA2. These genes are known to increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers. Now Ceriani is contemplating whether to have her ovaries removed, and intends to if she has either of the telltale genes. But since the PTO granted Myriad a patent on these genes, Ceriani (and others) cannot get a diagnosis on whether she has them without the permission of the company--a privilege for which Myriad charges $3,000 for the use of its "intellectual property."
The ACLU contends that, "patenting a gene is as wrong as patenting a basic element like gold or a basic law of nature like gravity. When it patents a gene, the U.S. Patent and trade office (PTO) is really patenting knowledge, which violates freedom of scientific inquiry." According to the ACLU Journal Civil Liberties, "Patents were designed to protect human inventions, and you can't invent a gene."
As an outgrowth of this practice, other researchers are barred from looking into someone's patented gene. According to Wired, Myriad Genetics has "issued a cease-and-desist order to Yale University scientists researching the genes." The ACLU suit thus asks the federal judiciary to rule against the patenting practice on grounds of infringing on freedom of speech and scientific inquiry as well as on establishing favored and protected monopolies on natural substances. In short, the whole concept of patenting a human gene will come under argument and be subject to legal review.
The decision, when it comes, will have far-reaching effects. Currently, about 63% of patents on genes are held by companies and 37% by universities. Is it right for anyone to own a patent on a naturally occurring substance or component of the human body? Is it right to grant such an entity sole discretion on whether a person can get a test to determine if the substance may give them a disease or how much they must pay for the rights to have that test done? Is it legitimate to allow them to bar medical researchers from looking into the gene, natural substance or body component and thus to curtail any potentially life-saving medical investigation into it for the life of the patent? How many lives might such theories ultimately cost?
Showing posts with label Biology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biology. Show all posts
Friday, September 18, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Encyclopedia of Life
Imagine an online site where you could look up all the important biological information for every species on earth. It is becoming reality right now. I invite you to take a look at an amazing project currently underway, the Enclyclopedia of Life. You can also read a four-page article on the project in the magazine On Earth.
The 2003 brainchild of Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, EOL got $12.5 million in foundation grants and debuted in February, 2008 with 30,000 species. It got 5 million hits the first day and crashed! It now has 170,000 species, about ten percent of the known and catalogued global taxonomy of approximately 1.8 million species. To continue work for the next ten years it may well take $100 million overall. The thing is, there are thought to be at least ten times that number of species (18 million) and when they finally get around to discovering and differentiating all the species of bacteria, some estimates are that the species list will run into the hundreds of millions.
The scale and scope of the EOL project are awe-inspiring. The system uses the Wikipedia model, but there is little reason to worry about hoax information on it. There are only some 6,000 qualified taxonomists in the world with the credentials to be allowed to submit data to the project. Yet people are currently scanning all the articles on biodiversity written before 1923. This is thought to amount to about 500 million pages of research.
The pages themselves are attractive, though. The basic pages include a picture of the species, its basic description, its Latin classification from kingdom down to species and links to the more specialized information you might be interested in. What is its geographic distribution? What does it eat and what eats it? Its ecological niche? Morphology? References in scientific literature? What current research projects are being done on it? It's a treasure trove for biologists and ecologists and students, for sure, but is interesting for regular lay people to peruse, too.
The Encyclopedia of Life is certainly the kind of project visionaries had in mind when they touted prospective uses for the new technology of the Internet. Take a look for yourself and wring your hands thinking about what we would have had to do find this kind of information for our high school or college term papers!
The 2003 brainchild of Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson, EOL got $12.5 million in foundation grants and debuted in February, 2008 with 30,000 species. It got 5 million hits the first day and crashed! It now has 170,000 species, about ten percent of the known and catalogued global taxonomy of approximately 1.8 million species. To continue work for the next ten years it may well take $100 million overall. The thing is, there are thought to be at least ten times that number of species (18 million) and when they finally get around to discovering and differentiating all the species of bacteria, some estimates are that the species list will run into the hundreds of millions.
The scale and scope of the EOL project are awe-inspiring. The system uses the Wikipedia model, but there is little reason to worry about hoax information on it. There are only some 6,000 qualified taxonomists in the world with the credentials to be allowed to submit data to the project. Yet people are currently scanning all the articles on biodiversity written before 1923. This is thought to amount to about 500 million pages of research.
The pages themselves are attractive, though. The basic pages include a picture of the species, its basic description, its Latin classification from kingdom down to species and links to the more specialized information you might be interested in. What is its geographic distribution? What does it eat and what eats it? Its ecological niche? Morphology? References in scientific literature? What current research projects are being done on it? It's a treasure trove for biologists and ecologists and students, for sure, but is interesting for regular lay people to peruse, too.
The Encyclopedia of Life is certainly the kind of project visionaries had in mind when they touted prospective uses for the new technology of the Internet. Take a look for yourself and wring your hands thinking about what we would have had to do find this kind of information for our high school or college term papers!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)