DNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: assessing benefits and risks

How Gene Patents May Inhibit Scientific Research

In this paper, we point out three possible ways gene patents could impede scientific research. First, gene patent laws might exacerbate the culture of secrecy ubiquitous in science. Second, gene patents may limit researchers’ ability to study poly or multigenic diseases without access to all genetic etiologies. Third, gene patents could result in a “patent thicket”.

Ethical reasons for narrowing the scope of biotech patents

Patents on biotech products have a scope that goes well beyond what is covered by the most widely applied ethical justifications of intellectual property. Neither natural rights theory from Locke, nor public interest theory of IP rights justifies the wide scope of legal protection. The article takes human genes as an example, focusing on the component that is not invented but persists as unaltered gene information even in the synthetically produced complementary DNA, the cDNA. It is argued that patent on cDNA holds this information captive, or illegitimately appropriates it in limiting other researchers and inventors' opportunity to explore new functions and uses based on this non-invented information. A tighter connection between legal IP protection and the use description stated in the patent claim is suggested. By binding protection to the product's foreseeable functions and use, instead of the product itself and all future uses of it, legitimacy of biotech product patents is restored.

Effects of research tool patents on biotechnology innovation in a developing country: a case study of South Korea

Background

Concerns have recently been raised about the negative effects of patents on innovation. In this study, the effects of patents on innovations in the Korean biotech SMEs (small and medium-sized entrepreneurs) were examined using survey data and statistical analysis.

Results

The survey results of this study provided some evidence that restricted access problems have occurred even though their frequency was not high. Statistical analysis revealed that difficulties in accessing patented research tools were not negatively correlated with the level of innovation performance and attitudes toward the patent system.

Conclusion

On the basis of the results of this investigation in combination with those of previous studies, we concluded that although restricted access problems have occurred, this has not yet deterred innovation in Korea. However, potential problems do exist, and the effects of restricted access should be constantly scrutinized.

Whole-genome patenting

Gene patenting is now a familiar commercial practice, but there is little awareness that several patents claim ownership of the complete genome sequence of a prokaryote or virus. When these patents are analysed and compared to those for other biological entities, it becomes clear that genome patents seek to exploit the genome as an information base and are part of a broader shift towards intangible intellectual property in genomics.

Ethico-legal issues in biomedicine patenting: a patent professional viewpoint

Over the last two decades, the ethical implications of patents for biological materials and processes have been the subject of spirited public debate between the many individuals and groups on which the patent system impacts. Whereas copyright, trade marks, and other species of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are widely acceptable, the patent system evokes criticism from many quarters, especially in relation to the legal protection of inventions in the Life Sciences. Some of these criticisms expressed by prestigious public organisations are addressed here from the patent professional standpoint.

Costs and benefits of genomics patents

Genomics patents are controversial on religious, ethical, legal, and economic grounds. An economic approach is desirable for valuing the patent system generally, and genomics patents in particular, in terms of its stated constitutional objective, which is to 'promote progress'. Several types of criticisms and warnings have been issued regarding the suitability of genomics inventions for patent protection; here these are evaluated in the context of more general concerns about the efficacy of the patent system. As with the patent system more generally, it is difficult to specify an alternative mechanism for producing inventions that has attributes (such as decentralized resource allocation, speed of therapeutic discovery, and financing by beneficiaries) that are predictable enough to serve as a benchmark against which to judge the current regime, which is dominated by genomics patents. The current patent regime can be expected to produce commercializable therapies reasonably reliably, while many proposed alternatives hearken back to a regime that did not produce commercializable therapies with as great speed or variety. Therefore, the onus appears to lie on the critics to create a model with the desirable properties of the patent system, but with fewer of its acknowledged weaknesses, such as 'monopoly' pricing and 'patent thickets'.

Are DNA patents bad for medicine?

This paper considers the potential benefits and harms of DNA patenting for biomedical research and medical practice. It argues that, all things considered, the benefits of patenting DNA outweigh the harms, although societies should adopt policies designed to prevent or mitigate the harms associated with patenting. Some of these policies include: (1) reinforcing the research exemption for academic researchers, (2) raising the "bar" for the criteria of patentability, (3) restricting the scope of patents, (4) disclosing conflicts of interest related to DNA patents, (5) sharing the economic benefits of patenting with patients, and (6) providing insurance coverage for some types of genetic tests.

Shackling the shoulders of giants. A report on excerpts from the National Academies' Symposium on the Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain, Washington, DC, September 5-6, 2002

This paper informally summarizes a two-day symposium held at the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., September 5-6, 2002. The issue was to what extent the progress of science and societal capacity for continued technological innovation are threatened by excessive protection of intellectual property. Excessive protection creates disadvantages not only for scientists and inventors but also for educators/students and for librarians/clientele. Speakers from a variety of disciplines and institutions agreed unanimously that scientific and technological progress is, indeed, under serious threat. Various opinions were expressed about the degree of threat, currently and prospectively, as well as what counter-measures are best suited to resist undue restrictions on creative uses of scientific and technical data and information. This summary is based entirely on the author's notes from the symposium, and the commentary offered is his alone. My apologies to the speakers if this paper does not accurately reflect the primary intent of their presentations. The "Suggested Readings" offered at the end are not specific to the speakers' statements but rather are offered as a general resource to aid further research. The definitive record of the symposium is planned to be available from the National Academies Press as a Proceedings publication in the summer of 2003.

The commercialization of human stem cells: ethical and policy issues

The first stage of the human embryonic stem (ES) cell research debate revolved around fundamental questions, such as whether the research should be done at all, what types of research may be done, who should do the research, and how the research should be funded. Now that some of these questions are being answered, we are beginning to see the next stage of the debate: the battle for property rights relating to human ES cells. The reason why property rights will be a key issue in this debate is simple and easy to understand: it costs a great deal of money to do this research, to develop new products, and to implement therapies; and private companies, researchers, and health professionals require returns on investments and reimbursements for goods and services. This paper considers arguments for and against property rights relating to ES cells defends the following points: (1) It should be legal to buy and sell ES cells and products. (2) It should be legal to patent ES cells, products, and related technologies. (3) It should not be legal to buy, sell, or patent human embryos. (4) Patents on ES cells, products, and related technologies should not be excessively broad. (5) Patents on ES cells, products, and related technologies should be granted only when applicants state definite, plausible uses for their inventions. (6) There should be a research exemption in ES cell patenting to allow academic scientists to conduct research in regenerative medicine. (7) It may be appropriate to take steps to prevent companies from using patents in ES cells, products, and related technologies only to block competitors. (8) As the field of regenerative medicine continues to develop, societies should revisit issues relating to property rights on a continuing basis in order to develop policies and develop regulations to maximize the social, medical, economic, and scientific benefits of ES cell research and product development.