Owning a gene

[Saint Cad]

When a drug company patents a gene, obviously they don't own exclusive right to that gene. Amgen can't come to my son and sue because he has the blue eye gene - so what exactly does having a patent on a gene mean? What right does the patent give the gene-holder?

[SiouxChief]

I don't have an answer for you, but...did you just happen to read "Next" by Michael Crichton? The novel touches on that same topic, and there's a bonus diatribe at the end. Interesting reading...

[Der Trihs]

I'm not an expert, but as I recall owning the gene gives them rights over any commercial uses of that gene. Possibly scientific uses as well; I''m not sure.

So, if they get hold of a cell sample from you, or some tribe in the Third World, and discover a useful gene and patent it, neither you or the tribe is allowed to profit from it.

[groman]

The way I understand it the "invention" in this case is "application of this genetic code in this overly vague and general but artificial way". As in they are not patenting what the animal is doing with the gene, they're patenting what they're doing with the gene. I don't think you can just patent an existing gene like that -- you either need to splice up something that didn't exist before or come up with a new application of something that did.

[Amp]

I don't think you can just patent an existing gene like that -- you either need to splice up something that didn't exist before or come up with a new application of something that did.
And what if they patent a gene that they came up with but a few years down the road it turns out that the gene naturally occurs in humans or animals on a rare basis?

[groman]

And what if they patent a gene that they came up with but a few years down the road it turns out that the gene naturally occurs in humans or animals on a rare basis?

If that's not "prior art" I don't know what is. After the first lawsuit, their patent will become void or much narrower (not sure, up to the courts/peculiarities of the legal system I do not know about)

[Colibri]

Genetics and patenting (Human Genome Project) (http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml)

In general, raw products of nature are not patentable. DNA products usually become patentable when they have been isolated, purified, or modified to produce a unique form not found in nature.

In terms of genetics, inventors must
(1) identify novel genetic sequences,
(2) specify the sequence's product,
(3) specify how the product functions in nature --ie, its use
(4) enable one skilled in the field to use the sequence for its stated purpose

Beginner's Guide to Gene Patents (http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,397385,00.html)

So what living things can be patented?
Naturally-occurring life forms, from plankton to people, cannot. But genetically engineered plants and animals, such as GM maize or lab mice designed to be prone to cancer, can. So can the naturally-occurring chemical codes and substances which allow all plants and animals, including humans, to function on a cellular level - like genes, or hormones - as long as the 'inventor' can specify a use for them.

Why should anyone want to patent something which occurs in nature?
Holding a patent on a human, plant or animal gene gives the holder control over commercial exploitation of that gene. If it's a human gene, that may involve diagnosis or therapy for a disease; if plant or animal, it may also involve disease, the promotion of a desirable characteristic like a sweet taste, or the transfer of the gene from one organism to another.

If someone has patented something which occurs naturally in my body, do I have to pay them?
No. Confusingly, a naturally-occurring gene can be patented as an isolated sequence, but not a gene in its natural state.