News in a nutshell
| 1 November, 2010 | Adie Chan |
7
|
|
Genes not patent-able
The US government announced on Friday (October 29) that researchers should not be able to patent genes because they are “products of nature.” This decision, which overturns the long-standing policy that genes are eligible for patents, could have a “huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry,” according to the New York Times.
The controversy about whether or not to patent genes arose over a 1998 patent for the breast cancer gene BRCA1. According to a study published last May in the journal Genomics, the patent should never have been granted, since it allowed the patent holder, a biotech company called Myriad Genetics, to establish a US monopoly on genetic testing for breast and ovarian cancer risk. The latest action came in the form of a “friend-of-the-court” brief filed by the Department of Justice, and contradicts the long-time policy of the patent office and the National Institutes of Health.
Courtesy of GHESKIO
One clinic’s fight in Haiti
With cholera spreading rapidly across the island country of Haiti, one clinical organization that was the focus of a recent feature in The Scientist is getting into high gear. Since the outbreak started, the Haitian Group for the Study of Kaposi’s Sarcoma and Opportunistic Infections (GHESKIO) has established three field hospitals to receive and treat eventual cholera patients, and set up training centers to teach about prevention and curing of cholera. The agency has also distributed clean drinking water, bleach for sanitation, and more than 400 kits that include water purification tablets, packets of rehydrating salts, antibiotics for children and adults, and worked with the Haitian Ministry of Health to quell the lethal outbreak.
In addition, GHESKIO is putting to use a therapy invented more than 30 years ago — an oral rehydration therapy known as the “serum oral.” The treatment was introduced in 1979 by Dr. Jean Pape, the director and founder of GHESKIO.
“With the cholera epidemic which is affecting Haiti, this serum will save not only children’s but also adult lives,” according to a statement from GHESKIO.
Father of evolution-of-sex theory dies
Evolutionary biologist Leigh Van Valen, who introduced the Red Queen Hypothesis, died in Chicago last month at age 76. Named for the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass,” the theory posited that organisms evolve sexual reproduction in order to “outrun” its competitors and enemies, evolutionarily speaking.
He also named 20 fossil mammals he had discovered after characters in J. R. R. Tolkien’s fiction, according to the New York Times.
Conflicts-of-interest news
The vast majority of scientists employed by the NIH say they think that the agency’s new rules about industry consulting are too restrictive, according to a new study that surveyed 900 senior investigators and administrators from October 2008 through January 2009. The stricter rules, which banned most relationships between in-house scientists and drug companies, were enacted 5 years ago after it was exposed that some senior-level researchers were earning hefty amounts of money from the companies for which they were consulting.
According to the new study, in the November issue of Academic Medicine, while nearly half of those surveyed think the new rules have improved NIH’s public image, 80 percent think they are too stringent. Additionally, 77 percent think it is now harder to accomplish NIH’s mission, and 66 percent are less satisfied with their jobs, according to ScienceInsider. The overall response rate to the survey was 70 percent.
In other news, new findings suggest the real problem with conflicts-of-interest may not be individual scientists, but the journals themselves, which are beholden to the pharmaceutical industry. A new study published in PLoS Medicine found that medical journals stand to gain money and prestige from printing papers on industry-funded clinical trials.
Among 1,353 clinical trials published in 1996–97 and 2005–06 by several prominent medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and The Lancet, industry-funded trials tended to rack up more citations than other trials, and thus boosted the impact factors of the journals more, according to Nature News.
And finally, US Senator Chuck Grassley is questioning some expensive travel from researchers at the National Cancer Institute.
Nature supports stem cell paper
Nature released a statement last week that cleared a 2009 stem cell article from Konrad Hochedlinger (once dubbed a “Scientist to Watch”) and colleagues at the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, which had been accused of manipulating an image in the paper, according to a Nature blog.
Wikimedia commons
Liberal gene found
Just in time for the US mid-term elections: Some political standings may be genetic, according to a new study published in The Journal of Politics. Specifically, liberals may owe their political leanings to a dopamine receptor gene called DRD4. The authors suggest that they have identified the first specific gene that predisposes people to certain political views, according to Newswise.
Clarification: The original version of this posted referred to the brief filed by the Department of Justice as a final “decision,” but as US patent agent Robyn Perrin pointed out to The Scientist, it is merely a brief that the “justices will take into consideration during their deliberation” on the issue of whether or not genes should be eligible for patents. As such, we have altered the wording to avoid misinterpretation. Thank you, Dr. Perrin, for bringing this important point to our attention.
Related Stories:
· Haiti’s health
[1st August 2010]
· Konrad Hochedlinger: A reprogramming revolutionary
[July 2009]
· Implementing Change
[March 2008]
|
|
previous post
The summary on the gene patent case above is not accurate. If you read the actual brief you will see that he U.S. amicus brief supports Judge Sweet’s decision on gene patents in some respects, and argues against it in others. The amicus brief makes a distinction, on the one hand, between DNA that is isolated and altered, and on the other hand, DNA that has simply been isolated. It argues that isolated and altered DNA should be patentable, whereas DNA that is simply isolated should not be patentable. It reads: “…the district court erroneously cast doubt on the patent-eligibility of a broad range of manmade compositions of matter whose value derives from the information encoding capacity of DNA. Such compositions—e.g., cDNAs, vectors, recombinant plasmids, and chimeric proteins, as well as countless industrial products, such as vaccines and genetically modified crops, created with the aid of such molecules—are in every meaningful sense the fruits of human ingenuity and thus qualify as “‘human-made inventions'” eligible for patent protection…. The district court therefore erred in invalidating the challenged composition claims, such as claim 2 of the ‘282 patent, that are directed solely to cDNAs. The district court correctly held, however, that genomic DNA that has merely been isolated from the human body, without further alteration or manipulation, is not patent-eligible.”
The filing of an amicus brief does nothing more than state the govenment’s opinion about how the court should rule. This has no effect on the patent office. It is only after the Federal Circuit makes a ruling that a legal decision is made (unless overturned by the Supreme court). You’ve really overstated the effect this document will have on the ongoing litigation.
At last a rational decision by the US Government on gene patents. OK if someone has invented a unique man made construct that provides a useful product via genetic engineering but the natural gene should not be patentable. Hurah!
Thank you, Robyn, for your clarification. I believe the misleading title should also be changed. It’s no wonder people are confused when the “facts” proclaimed by headlines are not facts at all…
It is the very extreme height of human arrogance to believe we should be able to patent the human gene, in any manner whatsoever; perhaps patenting particular procedures for their manipulation, but the gene set itself? That’s a rather disgusting idea, far as I’m concerned. But it seems we’ve reached a pinnacle in our hubris; there are people on this planet who actually think that absolutely everything should be owned by some corporation–water, for instance. Imagine it: drinking water, owned by some conglomerate. Lovely proposition, isn’t it? The conceit of the human species today just baffles me. I can’t believe a court hearing on this even had to take place–also the height of absurdity.
Gene patents have never been required to pass the most basic test that all other inventors are required to pass; that of novelty.
If someone creates a NEW gene, which solves a problem – cures a disease etc in an unobvious manner, sure, give them a patent. But not for that which has existed for millennia, just identified now with new tools.
Also, novel & unobvious tools should be patented.
I agree with the comments of jytdog, pdl, and Paulanne Chelf above and have urged for further clarification and correction of the reporting on this issue.