A look at patents on genes.
...t’s a pen or a gene fragment). Gene Fragments Gene fragments (EST’s), and singular genes are a hot topic. Genes and gene fragments cannot be patented unless they have been altered from their naturally occurring states. Since scientist can’t patent genes exactly as they occur in nature they alter them by isolating and purifying DNA sequences that are taken from the chromosomes they reside in nature. Scientists have patented genes that have been spliced into bacteria so that they can be used by a biotechnology firm to produce large quantities of proteins that are produced in small amounts in nature. SNP’s SNP’s (single nucleotide polymorphisms, pronounced ‘snips’) are variations in DNA when a single nucleotide is altered. Nucleotides are the actually bases (A,T,C, and G) in a chromosome. For instance if the sequence was originally AACCTTGGAA, the variation might be AACCTTAGAA. SNP’s have the same guidelines in patenting that gene fragments do. Proteins Proteins carry out the information transmitted from your genome. Proteins are important to genes and gene test because essential for gene function. Proteins are enzymes and enzymes work as energy of activation, therefore without proteins and a clear understanding of proteins, knowing information about genes and gene fragments are useless. Stem Cells Stem cells are another very hot topic. Patents for the stem cells of monkeys and many other organisms have been issued. In terms of human, the patenting of monkey stem cells leads the way for the patenting of human stem cells. In terms of patenting, stem cells fall under the regulations as gene fragments, for now. The main controversy of patenting gene and gene fragments is that most scientists often can’t clearly identify their usefulness. On a patent application, applicants use broad definitions of usefulness, like it will provide scientific probes to help find a gene or anther EST, or it will help map a chromosome. As a resolution of this problem the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) made new rules that force scientist to provide more specific details on how gene fragments products function in nature. There are ways to buy time, for instance, many companies have filed for provisional patents. Provisional patents give applicants up to one year to file their actual patent claim. This one-year period is not included in the standard twenty-year patent period. If a scientist cannot clearly identify the function and product of a fragment then the patent will be denied. It is often debated when a scientific discovery is patentable. Who has the right to patent? Should the right be given to the person who first discovers the genes function, the person whom first alters the gene, the person whom came up with the idea of genes or their patenting genes, or the person who invented the technology by which genes and their functions are discovered? And what happens when patents overlap? One example given by Rebecca Eisenberg is “Somebody gets a patent on an EST; someone else patents the full-length gene; another party patents a variant in that gene; and then someone patents a diagnostic test to test for variants predisposing for disease. "Each of these people could have their own patents," she points out. "And somebody who wants to bring that test to market will need licenses from all of them." (Rebecca Eisenberg is a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan who specializes in biotechnology patent law.) One of the most heated debates in the genetic patenting is the patenting of human embryonic stem cells. Some argue that it is against God and nature to use even use human stem cells. But stem cell advocates argue that stem cells can be used to treat diseases. As of know stem cells can be patented, but some people hope to change that law in the future. Pros of Gene patents Some researchers fee...