Getting into your genes

Imagine for a moment that you’re playing basketball with a couple of friends. You jump up to make a shot but don’t quite stick the landing. Your ankle twists and you hear a crack!

You take a ride to the hospital, where some X-rays are taken and examined by a doctor. She tells you it’s broken and that your favorite pastime of walking will be on hold for a few weeks. After the cast is put on, you return home.

Not long after, you receive a bill in the mail for services rendered. Included among the charges is a royalty fee for the X-ray image taken of your ankle. Someone has patented the structure of the ankle and is now charging you to look at yours.

Sounds crazy, right? U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet recently handed down a ruling attempting to prevent precisely this kind of scenario.

The case revolves around two patents held by Myriad Genetics, Inc. The patents in question weren’t for inventions or intellectual property that they had created but rather for human genes. The same genes that might exist in any one of us.

Myriad had previously held the patents for two genes that had been strongly linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Because the genes were their intellectual property, they were the only ones legally entitled to create and license the genetic testing materials to detect their presence.

The price tag for these genetic tests? About $4,000.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Public Patent Foundation, the groups responsible for suing Myriad in the first place, claimed that the holding of patents on human genes impeded scientific advancement and the treatment of genetic disorders.

Those in favor of the ability of private individuals and corporations to patent specific portions of the human genome that are of particular importance to scientific research say this decision might remove a major incentive for future research in this area. After all, research and development in this field could cost millions of dollars, and a patent is a fantastic method for recouping those investments.

So, will the lack of ability to patent human genes drop the bottom out of the biotech industry? I doubt it.

It’s not as if high-profit incentives drive all scientists to their work anyway. Douglas Prasher developed a method for protein detection in the late 1980s using genetic sequences taken from jellyfish. His work allowed three other men to receive the 2008 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. When asked if he felt he deserved the Nobel and its $450,000 prize, he responded, “There are other people who would have deserved it a whole lot more than me.”

Development of new and better detection and testing methods for research and diagnostic purposes still hold the promise of large profits for biotech firms. Universities (like good ol’ IU) will continue to channel large amounts of funding into scientific research programs, the fruits of which will not be affected by the new laws.

Science might be subject to the whims of economics, but the spirit of discovery about ourselves will never be dampened, patent or no patent.
 

E-mail: erbcox@indiana.edu