# Should you be able to patent a gene?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [January 8, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386 "2003-01-08T22:45:55Z")
**Posts on this page:** 8
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Rysto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rysto)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/1 "2003-01-08T22:45:55Z")
[http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=50ff8743-9513-4edf-8fe4-c3f58e1e66ab](http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=50ff8743-9513-4edf-8fe4-c3f58e1e66ab)
[http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=16d68fa0-216f-458d-86fb-60c020a1c527](http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=16d68fa0-216f-458d-86fb-60c020a1c527)
[http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=fa14d0bc-16d6-481c-9b68-eace9f70ffba](http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=fa14d0bc-16d6-481c-9b68-eace9f70ffba)
I think that this sums it up best:
Dr. Ronald Carter, chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on Genetics: **"It’s like the guy who discovered water saying, ‘This is a natural phenomenon, I found it first, everything that has to do with water is mine.’ "**
Also, it’s interesting to note that the Harvard mouse [cannot be patented here in Canada.](http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/05/scc_mouse021205)
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/2 "2003-01-09T00:21:43Z")
Well, obviously the answer is “Hell No!”. The problem is that they are not quite patenting the gene but rather the method for detecting it. From the first paragraph of your first link:
> [@](#):
>
> cannot be used in Canada without violating the patent rights of a U.S. firm and its controversial monopoly over genetic testing for the disease.
But the article goes on to make it sound much more ominous:
> [@](#):
>
> The BRCA1 patent gives Myriad the right to exclude all others from virtually any use of the gene for breast and ovarian cancer diagnostics until 2015, and until 2016 for the BRCA2 gene.
So they sum up the crux of the issue:
> [@](#):
>
> Now, published scientific studies show at least one new breast cancer screening technique – denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) – is as sensitive in detecting BRCA mutations as the Myriad method, and as much as 25 times less expensive.
>
> Yet DHPLC cannot be used for breast cancer testing in Canada without breaching Myriad’s right to exclude all but its own test from being used
So to fine tune the water analogy, it’s as if they discovered water with a custom straw and now noone’s allowed to retrieve water with any method other than there straw. This sounds like big BS to me, patent the detection method but not the actual gene.
The patent is being challenged in the EU as well. From [article](http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/ip-health/2002-October/003502.html):
> [@](#):
>
> The latest challenge was filed at the European Patent Office, which has granted three patents for BRCA1 to Myriad Genetics, essentially giving the Salt Lake City, Utah, company a monopoly on predictive tests based on that gene. European institutions have already challenged the first patent, which covered the coding sequence of the BRCA1 gene, and the second one, which covered a set of gene mutations. Those challenges have yet to be resolved. The latest objection is against the third patent, which covers therapy and predictive uses.
One of the institutes objecting, France’s [Curie Institute](http://www.curie.net/actualites/myriad/datescles_gb.cfm) has problems with tests accuracy as well as morality:
> [@](#):
>
> The Institut Curie’s Oncological Genetics Department, directed by Dr D. Stoppa-Lyonnet, detected in an American family a degradation in the BRCA1 gene that was not detected by Myriad Genetics.
>
> The industrial method used by the American company allows from 10% to 20% of the mutations to go undetected because it does not enable large-size mutations to be detected.
[Here](http://www.cptech.org/ip/health/biotech/eu-brca.html) is a EU parliament resolution paper on the patents. It is not favourable.
---
### Author:  [@SandyHook](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SandyHook)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/3 "2003-01-09T00:37:07Z")
If you **create** the gene, why not. The genes and whatnot that make up our DNA fall into the, “public domain,” and are not patentable, as far as I know.
rysto wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> Dr. Ronald Carter, chair of the Ontario Advisory Committee on Genetics: "It’s like the guy who discovered water saying, ‘This is a natural phenomenon, I found it first, everything that has to do with water is mine.’ "
Fine, so he patented it. The patent ran out 99,000 years ago.
Carnalk wrote:
> [@](#):
>
> The BRCA1 patent gives Myriad the right to exclude all others from virtually any use of the gene for breast and ovarian cancer diagnostics until 2015, and until 2016 for the BRCA2 gene.
Rather than complain about Myriad owing this bit of knowledge we should be pleased that we, humanity, have it at our disposal at all.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2003, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/4 "2003-01-09T02:27:46Z")
“If you create the gene, why not. The genes and whatnot that make up our DNA fall into the, “public domain,” and are not patentable, as far as I know.”
It seems you haven’t grasped the issue. No gene was “created”. Myriad has developed a method for finding mutations in a certain gene which makes women susceptible to breast cancer; now they don’t want anyone doing **anything** to the gene without going through them.
The links will explain properly (and read my 3rd quote slower).
---
### Author:  [@Aspidistra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aspidistra)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2003, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/5 "2003-01-09T05:53:23Z")
Let me get this straight:
Company A discovers a method of detecting breast cancer by looking at a gene (which already exists in humans, and which they did not create, just looked at). They patent this method.
Company B discovers a completely DIFFERENT method of detecting breast cancer by looking at the same gene, but without using any of Company A’s work.
The law only allows the use of Company A’s method.
WTF??? How can they do that?
---
### Author:  [@GOM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GOM)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/6 "2003-01-10T18:02:16Z")
No!
People should not be allowed to slap a patent on God’s programming. However, it is already being done…
☹
I think this field could eventually be a huge moneymaker for a few big corporations, but very bad for us as individuals.
.02
---
### Author:  [@Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greenback)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2003, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/7 "2003-01-10T18:14:30Z")
By being able to patent a gene, does that company then own the rights to a part of every individual?
I can understand companies being able to patent a method. But It is a little presumptuous for them to believe that they can restrict access to a gene that resides in my body.
That’s on topic. Extending the topic, I don’t think it’s right for a company to be able to restrict the use of any method when it comes to something like detecting cancer. A person’s life is at state and big companies are squabbling over patents and copyrights. I know there’s money issues but that still doesn’t justify it.
Sorry for the deviation Rysto…just something that bugs me.
---
### Author:  [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)
#### Post date: [January 10, 2003, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-you-be-able-to-patent-a-gene/147386/8 "2003-01-10T18:18:02Z")
Well you can take heart that the patent is pretty meaningless until it is tested in court. I have to believe it will fail there(read the EU statement linked at the bottom of my 1st post).