• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    jmac on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    Beata on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    William on Explaining Trump’s criming in…
    riverdaughter on A note of caution on those…
    Ivory Bill Woodpecke… on Welease the documents!
    jmac on Welease the documents!
    Propertius on A note of caution on those…
    riverdaughter on A note of caution on those…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama Bernie Sanders big pharma Bill Clinton cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donald Trump Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans research Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Texas Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • Open Thread
      Use the comments to discuss topics unrelated to recent posts. Facebook Twitter WhatsApp LinkedIn
  • Top Posts

Patenting Parts of People

The ACLU just started a lawsuit saying that patents of human genes are invalid. Specifically, it’s about two breast cancer genes, BRCA1 and 2, but the implications extend to the principle of the thing. And it’s about bloody time.

To understand the merits of the case, consider two parallel situations.

a) Someone removed a strip of skin from your forearm (surgically, with anesthesia, of course), carefully dissected out the different layers, labelled them, and filed the whole thing away in a scientific exhibit. Do they get a patent? No. You can’t patent something you didn’t invent.

b) Someone removed a microscopically small piece of skin from your forearm, carefully noted all the different components down to the molecules, labelled them, and filed the whole thing away. Do they get a patent? Yes. Apparently, so long as it’s invisible, you can patent things you didn’t invent.

At this point it seems quaint to insist that patenting life, so long as it’s in very small pieces, is wrong. We’ve grown inured to the travesty. It is, after all, a very lucrative travesty.

I don’t buy the argument that because it’s done in a test tube, that makes it different. Let’s say your goal is to read a book. Whether you read it, hear it read out loud, or feel the letters using Braille, you can get at the contents of the book. Just because somebody makes the book available in large type doesn’t give them the right to copyright the book. If they invent a new kind of printing press they can patent that, but they still can’t copyright the book. Studying life by looking into a test tube, a microscope, or a transect are all different methods, but none of them give anyone the right to patent life itself.

And yet, that’s what people do. Most of the time, they invent nothing at all. They apply standard methods to find information about life which they then patent. Sometimes, new techniques are found, and very good ones, too. But instead of being given patents only on the technique, they get patents on the life the technique allows them to study. It’s as if Galileo were given a patent on the Universe instead of the telescope.

So that’s why I say it’s about bloody time. That’s why organizations representing tens of thousands of scientists have joined the suit. And that’s why this is perhaps the most critical lawsuit of this generation. What’s at stake is whether science advances as fast as knowledge is discovered or whether a medieval guild mentality can keep us ignorant.

The cost of ignorance has increasingly become public knowledge as the Bush years were devoted to making it obvious. What’s been lost in stem cell science alone is thousands of human beings who are still have now-curable retinopathies, still have juvenile diabetics, still have Parkinson’s, and so on through a sad list of diseases. But that’s only a faint echo of what we’re losing because of the insanity of patenting life.

What can be done? Watch this suit like a hawk. Watch for any Congressional action and pester the bejeesus out of the Congresscritters. And, right now it happens that (via Ars Technica), “the Department of Health and Human Services is in the process of setting an official policy on gene patenting and will be accepting public comment on drafts of the policy for a few more days.” Get over there and tell them (politely) that we need to get back to patenting inventions, not discoveries. Human health, the advancement of science in the US, and our competitiveness depends on it.

12 Responses

  1. This should be interesting to watch because of the pharmacological implications. Intellectual property has allowed drug companies to get away with claiming intellectual property rights because they explored an avenue of research first.

  2. This is really interesting and important, quixote. If only we had some decent people in our government. It’s just exhausting to think of all the issues that we need to advocate for. Thanks for a fascinating post.

    • Even though you apparently hated mine yesterday….

      • No, no, no. Hated is way too strong a word. Gibbs’ claims should certainly be studied. What gets me about it is the instant media frenzy it generated, especially since, as far as I can tell, his ideas are pretty far out there. I was just trying to inject that note of caution. The fact that someone is raising those concerns is worth pointing out!

      • What media frenzy? It was in Bloomberg and that was about it unless there were stories in the NYT and WP today?

        • It just seemed to be everywhere I looked for a while. BBC, Reuters, and I’m not sure where I went after that, but there it was through about 3 or 4 more places. Much as I love the BBC, their science reporting could really use work. Those are outfits that have the resources to actually inform the rest of us, but there are times when BBC & Reuters both have more than a touch of the old Fleet St.

          My comment on your post wasn’t because I didn’t like it. Honest! 🙂 I was trying to add information. Sorry if it didn’t come across that way!

    • “If only we had some decent people in our government.”

      We need publicly funded campaigns to attempt to have representatives beholden to us. There was a press conference in Connecticut advocating for the Fair Elections Now Act. http://www.publicampaign.org/blog-tags/connecticut

      Durbin was on Bill Moyers pushing it. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05082009/watch.html

  3. This is interesting!

    When people hear about my family cholesterol levels (some of us coming from my dad’s side of the family have bizarrely (almost dangerously) low cholesterol) they say — “you should patent it.”

    Which has always seemed selfish to me. I mean if someone can do something good with my blood more power to them. It’s not like I’m going to do anything with it.

    But, I’m equally uninterested in someone ELSE getting a patent on my blood – or whatever it is that controls my near total lack of cholesterol.

  4. Nothing suprises me there have been farmers sued because Monsanto patented seeds. Bees pollenate and now their entire crops are seen as using patented seeds although they did not use their seeds.

    • They sued Oprah for dissing cheeseburgers.

    • You’re kidding. Right? Because I would think those farmers would have better reason to sue. It’s their crops that were contaminated.

      • No, he’s not. An association of cattlemen really did sue Oprah for dissing cheeseburgers. It was in the 1990s sometime, wasn’t it? Hilarious. (It was just about the fat content, not the bioengineering. Although if she’d been smart, she would have brought that up too.)

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: