Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 9434

Scientists and commercial firms are scrambling to patent the genetic code of the virus thought to be responsible for Sars.

The group which produced the first entire genetic sequence of the coronavirus confirmed this week that it is seeking a patent to ensure that everyone has free access to the code.

It fears that a commercial patent could slow down research into vaccines and treatments.

In recent years, many genes thought to relate to illness have been "patented" by individuals and firms.

This remains controversial - many scientists regard the unravelling of the function of genes as a "discovery" rather than an "invention", and therefore not patentable.

However, increasingly, scientists have lodged "defensive" gene patents to prevent commercial firms claiming intellectual property over them.

Swift sequence
The first genome of the Sars coronavirus strain was published within days of the World Health Organization sounding an alert over the illness.

So far, the virus has killed more than 400 people and infected thousands more.

The genome was published by the British Columbia Cancer Agency, based on samples taken from Sars patients in Toronto.

Samuel Abraham, its director for technology development, said that a provisional patent application had been made in the US.

He said: "What we're really trying to do here is make this something that will enable companies to have the freedom to operate."

He said that the agency would receive some royalties, which would be ploughed back into research.

Uncertainty
A Hong Kong firm is reportedly seeking a patent on the entire virus, and it will be months before a decision is made on whose intellectual property the virus strain and its genes are.

It is still not entirely certain whether the coronavirus identified by researchers is the sole cause of Sars.

A spokesman for the British Columbia Cancer Agency said: "We have made a defensive filing of a provisional patent application that we intend will protect accessibility to this scientific information rather than a monopoly approach by other organisations, corporations or individuals that could preclude access to scientists across the world including us."

(Source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3007087.stm )

Am I the only one sickened by companies trying to make a fast buck off of this?

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10361

all i know is you're gay. long live white-hetero-american-males!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

While I voted for the second option, I have to ask, how can it be patented'? I don't mean the legal aspect, but more the biological one. I may be completely wrong here, I am no microbiologist, but as I understand it, the corona virus is a mutating virus. As with the common cold (one of it's mutations) every time it leaps from host to host it changes. I have always presumed that this meant it mutated at a genetic level, meaning that sequencing it will only be relevant to that mutation. That;s why the common cold has no cure technically, because it's different each time. The same is true of influenza, hence yearly jobs for vaccinations if you want one.

How can you sequence something that changes on a regular basis? Or am I misunderstanding the notion of mutation in that it actually occurs at a cellular level rather than a genetic one? (although wouldn't a cellular level imply some genetic alteration as well possibly?)

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10361

from what i understand, there are many thousands of different strands of most viruses, all different mutations from the original, but still similar enough to the original to tell theyre related, and most strands dont do anything special. it's the strands that figure out how to circumvent treatment that make news, like the flu strand that is becoming more resistant to flu shots every generation. any which way, i dont get how you can 'patent' a virus anyway, i'd say mother nature owns that one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

I agree dingle. Obviously the DNA sequence to the large extent is identical. However its that little bit (I assume) that isn't, that make me wonder how one can patent SARS. Unless of course they are talking about patenting the corona virus in general, ie. the believed orginal.

I am not against all patenting per se btw. I do think though that in the case of something as potentially devasting as SARS it would be the wrong direction to go in really.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 10361

it is kinda like open source for doctors though, kinda cool

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2000
Location: In a Blue, Blue State
Posts: 13421

Patenting naturally occuring biological data is a crime, or at least it should be.

You could give a tissue sample to some researcher investigating some sickness you had, and he may discover that your DNA sequence could be unique in some respect and be replicated and inserted into a gene therapy cure, all without your knowledge and consent. He could then patent your DNA sequence to protect his gene therapy process. This kind of thing happened a few years back, and the tissue donor sued. The courts denied the suer, claiming that since their DNA had been patented, it no longer belonged to them.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2000
Location:
Posts: 9434

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dingle
all i know is you're gay. long live white-hetero-american-males!

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3840

quote:

---

Originally posted by billgerat
The courts denied the suer, claiming that since their DNA had been patented, it no longer belonged to them.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

quote:

---

Originally posted by SatansLeftHand
i would have thought that the originator of the dna would have some form of copyright, thus rendering the patent invalid.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: is futile
Posts: 5078

Free information...

Patents were invented for an industrial era, where ideas, and the application of the idea demanded heavy investment in raw material and production facilities.

Patents in a knowledge based economy should not follow industrial standards.

The medical industry is a prime example. There is too much innovation inertia caused by patents... and people suffer for it.

I agree with the discovery vs. invention line of thought btw.
Discovered principles shouldnt be patentable... and non-industrial patent systems should be reformed (reduced in strenght and longetivity)

but that is just IMHO

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

Medical patents don't last as long as normal patents already, I don't think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 13002

10 years for drug patents in the UK before people can produce 'generics' I think.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Aug 2001
Location: Hilbert Space
Posts: 35779

I had thought it was 20 years, but it is relatively short anyhow.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2002
Location:
Posts: 16736

I believe that a "normal" patent in the US gives a protection of 17 years. There has been a lot of discussion in recent years in the biomedical community about trying to get this period extended for novel pharmaceuticals. The reasoning is that the time between patent issuance and regulatory approval of the compound for human usage is on the order of 8-10 years, normally, thus sharply limiting the exclusivity period of the patent and the potential for profit.

Pharmaceutical research is done for profit, almost universally.

As to patenting DNA, that issue is quite contentious. For example, the degree of biodiveristy in tropical regions is typically as much as an order of magnitude greater than in temperate regions. Many tropical nations are vehemently opposed to some pharmaceutical firm being permitted to come in, remove unique biological samples, sequence the DNA and patent it, to their profit. In the view of the 3rd world nations involved, some portion of that profit should be theirs.

Good luck.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2000
Location:
Posts: 5526

sideline to the patent issues =

some light reading on bioethics:
http://www.nih.gov/sigs/bioethics/humantissue.html

see page 50 of this http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/hbm.pdf for "Commodification of the Body and Its Parts: Issues of Justice and Respect for Persons"

Pretty much the deal is, that if you participate in a study, you sign forms stating that you know your rights (informed consent), which pretty much means that you're saying it's okey dokey for them to use your parts/whatever.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged