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 gene patent is a patent on a specific gene sequence, its usage, and often its chemical composition. Other gene patents claim processes. A single patent can contain both composition of matter claims and process claims. There is controversy over whether these patents advance technology by providing scientists, companies, and universities with an incentive to create or hinder research by creating legal uncertainty over who has proprietary rights to products and processes. Some critics[who?] also charge that the costs of licensing patents result in higher prices for genetic testing.
[edit] History
The United States has been patenting chemical compositions based upon human extractions for over 100 years. The first patent for such a chemical was granted in 1907 for adrenaline. Insulin followed adrenaline as the second patent in 1923.[1] But prior to the 1970s it was almost unheard of to submit an application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for an organism. As a rule, raw natural material is generally rejected for patent approval by the USPTO. It is only after a DNA product is isolated, purified, or modified that a patent is considered. Over three million gene related patents have been applied for in the United States alone. All pending applications are made public at 18 months after filing unless otherwise requested by the applicant.[2] The Supreme Court decision in Diamond v. Chakrabarty decided certain genetically engineered bacteria were patentable because they were not naturally occurring. Since this important decision, patents have been issued on genes whose function is known.[2] [edit] Criticism
The major legal issues are themselves a great topic of controversy [3][4] because there hasn't yet been a clear definition of what exactly can and cannot be patented. One of the legal issues is patent stacking[5], the ability of multiple patents on different aspects of a single idea to be owned by many different individuals or organizations.[6] This alone can increase the sheer cost of using any gene therapy, or technique. The person administering the treatment technique must first get legal permission from each individual owner of the patents thus increasing the overall cost for the patient. Patents can hinder the scientific process by limiting research and increasing the cost.[7][8] They can also limit medical testing.[9] Moore v. Regents of the University of California involved a hairy-cell-leukemia patient, John Moore, and his physician (a Dr. Golde) at UCLA Medical Center. Moore underwent a splenectomy, and in 1981 a patent was awarded to others than Moore, on uses of the cell line descended from the removed organ. [edit] See also[edit] References
[edit] External links
|
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
