add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
A biological patent is a patent relating to an invention or discovery in biology.
[edit] HistoryThe 1970s marked the first time when scientists patented methods on their biotechnological inventions with recombinant DNA. It wasn’t until 1980 that patents for whole-scale living organisms were permitted. In Diamond v. Chakrabarty, the Supreme Court overturned a previous precedent allowing the patentability of living matter. The subject for this particular case was a bacterium that was specifically modified to help clean up and degrade oil spills. Since the 1980 court case, there has been a general trend of patenting inventions on living matter. Companies and organizations, like the University of California, have patented entire genomes.[1] In 1998, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) issued a broad patent claiming primate (including human) embryonic stem cells, entitled "Primate Embryonic Stem Cells" (Patent 5,843,780). On 13 March 2001, a second patent (6,200,806) was issued with the same title but focused on human embryonic stem cells. Recently, there has been a slowdown and backlash against patenting biological material worldwide. [edit] ControversySome believe that natural occurrences are not invented and thus should not be patentable. This is especially true if the biological matter being patented can be found in humans, such as sequences of DNA. The reason for the controversy associated with patenting biological material is less clear in the United States whose patent process differs from the rest of the world. The term invention, which is much more broadly interpreted, must prove to have a utility instead of industrial application. According to Nielson and Whittaker (2002), the “notion of ‘utility’ is less specific, it means it is useful” [2]. Many outside the United States feel that the patenting of stem cells was rash and are seeking to reverse patent rulings. In December 2006, Germany made an important precedent when it annulled the validity of a stem cell patent. The German Federal Patent Court declared that anything made from human tissue cannot be patented. In more general terms, the European Patent Office has ruled that stem cell lines are not to be granted a European patent. This convention includes 32 countries and 5 that recognize European patents. Worldwide, people are questioning the validity of stem cell patents. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation has sought to gain approval for its US patent in Europe without success. The backlash against stem cell patents is also occurring in the United States, but to a lesser degree. Currently, an appeal against the patents is being processed by two non-profit organizations: The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights and Public Patent Foundation along with molecular biologist Jeanne Loring of the Burnham Institute. They are fighting the validity of the patents by arguing that two of the patents cover a technique published in 1992, already patented by an Australian scientist. Another claim is that the techniques tied up with the patents are rendered obvious under a 1990 paper and two textbooks. Advocates who speak against biological patents suggest that the techniques and processes associated with the discovery could be patentable but not the actual biological matter itself. For example, an advocate against biological patents would suggest that a gene associated with cancer should not be patented, but the test used to detect the gene could be. [edit] Effects on researchSome believe that the increase in patenting biological information leads to inefficiency in research. Many scientists are coming up against patent thickets, which are masses of information that they must obtain permission (and often pay large fees to utilize) before they can ever work with the information.[citation needed] Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg (2005) explain that there is a recent trend of patenting more and more steps along the research path. This creates a "tragedy of the anticommons," whereby "each upstream patent allows its owner to set up another tollbooth on the road to product development, adding to the cost and slowing the pace of downstream . . . innovation" [3]. A report shows that notwithstanding escalating funding, in the past half-decade biomedical innovation has slowed markedly. The number of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration has fallen below previous eras. The technologies approved, it continues, are less influential than previous innovations approved. The current trend of patenting what previously were thought of as basic science insights have raised the financial bar for other scientists wanting to use such insight. The overall trend of more patents may be slowing innovation. However, others[vague] point out that patents are necessary for research. Without them, scientists would keep secret all discoveries for fear of colleagues and others stealing their ideas. There would also be little incentive for large-scale investments from the private sector.[citation needed] [edit] References
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
[edit] Papers
|
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
