Michael Crichton had an interesting OP-ED piece in February 13th's NY Times regarding patents on human genes. He asserts that they stifle innovation with regard to new medical applications and treatments for diseases, in addition to hampering scientists from further exploring a gene and how it functions.
In short the holder of the patent can charge whatever they want to someone that wants to develop an application for a diagnostic test, or do basic research. In most cases of research he says that the investigators choose to study something else. He goes on to say that in countries where there are no gene patents there tends to be a better level of diagnostic testing available. He finsihes by mentioning 2 congressmen that want to remove the idea of patents on gere. What do you think?
I think of the genome as being open source. Under the current system if I wanted to donate some DNA to a scientist to study one of my genes I would be constrained by any patents being held on a particular gene. So in essence I don't even own what is in my body. I should. After all... I made it!
I say there should be no gene patents. In fact any naturally occurring gene or protein should be kept as open source. Keep the patents for the novel, synthetically created molecules, and leave my genome and proteome in the public domain.
Check the article out for yourself
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment