The patent threat to designer biology
Behind scare stories of building synthetic life lies the issue of who owns the biological parts.
"For the first time, God has competition", claimed the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (ETC Group) two weeks ago. With this catchy headline, it aimed to raise the alarm about a patent on "the world's first-ever human-made species", a bacterium allegedly created "with synthetic DNA" in the laboratories of the Venter Institute in Rockville, Maryland.
Comments
For those who are interested to see what is actually intended as the subject of patent protection (surely all readers?), a reference to the patent application itself would have been helpful ?
My guess is published US patent application US 2007/0122826 A1. Perhaps the author of the article could confirm this.
Editor's note - that's the one! It is linked to from the story's 'external links' on the right hand side of the article, where you can often find such useful links. Here it is again
Posted by: john blake | June 25, 2007 03:41 PM
aha - I was dazzled by the bright red list of references ! apologies for impugning your thoroughness !
Posted by: john blake | June 26, 2007 09:43 AM
What seems most remarkable is that this patent has been filed without such an organism being created. The patent admits that there was a fair idea of which genes were nonessential in 1999 - this is merely an incremental refinement on that list of nonessential genes. Now they've narrowed the list from 130 to 101, but this isn't proof that any organism can survive with all of those genes missing at the same time (highly doubtful) - and so what the patent claims is the right to any organism lacking any 40 of 101 different genes. That gives them exclusive ownership of 5.8638742 × 10^195 different organisms! A short statement describes that someday it will be possible to work out which such organisms are viable. This is less like patenting a better mousetrap than patenting the use of springs, levers, and gears to invent a new mousetrap. Is there truly no idea too broad or obvious to be patented? We'll find out.
Posted by: Mike Serfas | June 28, 2007 10:12 PM
As a US patent attorney, I may be jumpting the gun, as I have not yet read the application. However, as it has been described on this page it would not be patentable. It would lack enablement, and possibly evidence that the inventors possessed the whole invention at the time of filing. On the other hand, there is no requirement in US patent law that a product be made to be patentable, only a requirement that the application enables a person of skill in the art to make it. Because this is such a difficult field to predict, it is likely that without an actual product being described in the application, the application will be found non-enabled.
Posted by: Carol A. Schneider | July 2, 2007 06:41 PM
I think that in first approach a patent (as well as a copyright) is an injustice, a violation of human rights, since a right is taken away from everyone falling under that law, except for the patent holder. However it is (or was)? justified as a "deal" to get the inventor to reveal the invention. So patent (and copyright) rights should be interpreted "restrictedly", and not regarded as an inherent, or "natural" right. And patents that are not in the public interest should not be granted since the public probably would not agree to such a "deal"!
And I think, that a country that does not have a treaty to respect another country's patents, and does not do so, is not doing anything unfair.
I think that the patent system has "gotten out of hand" (see present case!) and is due for replacement (awards or prizes, especially for the small inventor?).
In, for example, medicine and biology, I think the accent should be on non-profit institutes and patents should be abolished, perhaps replaced by prizes for good work since patents and profit tend to drive up prices (the "customer" pays for the patent and the legal battles) and to restrict research to what is patentable and "profitable", and not for rare but serious illness. And they tend to make companies ignore possible better medicines. (If Company X has a succesful patent, company Y might have an improvement but that is not patentable, and so might chose for a less good variation that is patentable?) [A course with diluted vinegar, as I discovered, might be quite adequate against excess stomach acid, but it probably cannot be patented and so is probably not interesting for a profit company)
And then there is the quite unfair (and nebulous?) custom that copyright is granted for a much longer time than for patents for "hard work, high risk inventions" and for a time that counts from the death of the author, rather than from the time the work was made. How does ye ordinary user know if and when the author died?
And then there might be the absurd possibility that someone makes a patent, that prevents you from using your own body?
(Admittedly, patents have been granted for several of my inventions, and copyrights for some of my work.)
P. N. Kruythoff
Posted by: P. N. Kruythoff | September 9, 2007 08:11 PM
Electronic Laboratory notebooks (ELNs) are becoming increasingly popular and important because of government regulations such as 21CFR11, which specify how records must be created, digitally authenticated and archived. Digital lab records that are 21CFR11 compliant are admissible in patent cases and other legal or regulatory proceedings. There are some free ELN's out there but you get what you pay for. One example of a modern ELN that is optimized for life science research is CERF by Rescentris Inc. CERF is the only ELN that is both Mac and Windows compatible and fully 21CFR11 compliant. It includes advanced features such as metadata searches and customizable access permissions that help principle investigators to manage and track all the activities in a modern lab staffed by many scientists working on different but related problems. Does anyone else have experience with or recommendations for using ELNs in government or other tightly regulated laboratories? Has anyone found themselves facing a patent issue that was helped (or hurt?) by maintaining careful records using an ELN?
Posted by: Rob Day | January 27, 2009 09:15 PM