Comments (14) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

   So have his boss fill out the legal paperwork and file suit.

2. 

   Mike's Dragon said, 5 months ago

   I didn’t know they had lawers up there! Is this where they tell him to go to H*ll

3. 

   cdward said, 5 months ago

   I confess I find the patenting of genes to be very dubious ethically. Curious to hear other takes on it.

4. 

   Corosive Frog said, 5 months ago

   I love this toon! Even an atheist can agree. Even if (they think) genes aren’t made by God, they were certainly no made by any corporation. They were in nature way before any company ever existed and will remain there well after they are gone.

   Sooky Rottweiler says;

   It’s kinda like me owning a copiright on a hydrant I only watered once in the last three years.

5. 

   fennec said, 5 months ago

   FWTW, I as a scientist also have difficulty with gene patenting. It seems to me that it is a natural product and thus unpatentable. I think the initial ruling way back when was dealing with the BRCA1 and 2 diagnostic kits. However, I think the whole question is about to be revisited, so this kind of patentability may be changed.

6. 

   danielsangeo said, 5 months ago

   Sooky Rottweiler’s human: I’m an atheist and I totally agree.

7. 

   cjkinsey said, 5 months ago

   I concur this is more a corporatization issue for me than a theological one. Gene’s should not be owned.

8. 

   curiosity1 said, 5 months ago

   I concur. The exception I would provide, is, if a gene is reproducibly manufactured wholesale, and the result of its creation is documentable and clear, and that gene can be shown not to exist in nature (with the possible exception of extremely rare mutation), then I would consider patenting as reasonable.

9. 

   fritzoid said, 5 months ago

   I’m unsure. There are different issues involved, and I’m not sure which one is being addressed. My genetic code is unique to me, but I didn’t create it. Yet I believe there are people who’ve tried (successfully?) to protect their proprietary rights to their own genetic makeup.

   On the other hand, we have the technology to create genes from scratch, or introduce manufactured portions of DNA into existing strands, thereby creating by deliberate design complex molecules which did NOT occur naturally, and really never WOULD.

   For many years, I think, agricultural companies have been able to patent particular strains of seed corn (and the like), which strains were produced by controlled, selective breeding and hybridization (rather than direct genetic manufacture). If anything, I think lab-created genes would be MORE worthy of patent protection (or, like computer code, would copyright be more appropriate?).

   A prosthetics manufacturer might patent a particular design for an artificial knee. The recipient has rights of ownership for the USE of that knee, but does not gain the right to reproduce it for another’s use. If a genetic engineer produces a segment of DNA which can be used therapeutically, why should they not receive the same intellectual property protection? It’s just a complex strand of chemicals, like developing a new plastic, after all.

   But what if they create a gene (or gene segment) which can be inherited? A variant strain of pig whose organs can be freely harvested for human use, perhaps? What if it’s simply an altered virus which can be injected to combat or immunize against other viruses? It would be a unique “life form”, but in practical terms it would just be a new type of pharmaceutical.

   It’s too soon for me to make any blanket statements such as “genes should not (or should) be patentable.” Human regard for non-human life forms has a complex history, and while different people have different ideas where any such lines should be drawn (what sorts of research may be done using what sorts of animals, etc.), it’s been generally workable to say that there’s SOME line beyond which we won’t cross.

10. 

    fennec said, 5 months ago

    Fritzoid, the problem with gene-patenting I have is based on the attempts to patent what are essentially genomes, that is what we term wild-type, the naturally occurring forms. To give an example, in the lab where I work, we have produced a “minigene”, similar, but not identical to the wild-type gene. We have also identified a change in the sequence which confers higher activity on the protein made from this gene. I would have no difficulty with patenting such a “gene” with that change incorporated, but I do have trouble with patenting the original wild-type gene that we did not make but only cloned.

11. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    fennec, to the extent that I understand your distinction (and I’m not 100% sure that I do, but the fault is probably mine) I agree with you (for the most part). But would hybridization/selective breeding be considered wild-type genes? I think those are already patentable.

    Also, if one were, in a lab, able to isolate a particular wild-type gene which would, under natural processes, be lost through the natural death of the donor (“host”?) and, through cloning or other means, preserve (and mass-produce) that gene, might it be worthy of proprietary protection?

    Again, I think that there’s a line to be drawn somewhere, but whether that line is at the level of species, individual, phylum, family, or whatever is, as Obama said concerning the question of when “human life” begins, above my pay grade.

12. 

    Anthony 2816 said, 5 months ago

    What if someone gets a copy of your genome and patents it?

    Do you have to pay them a licensing fee if you decide to keep using it?

13. 

    fennec said, 5 months ago

    Fritzoid, I think the selective breeding thing is a bit different. Years ago DuPont patented the Oncomouse, genetically engineered for cancer studies. Thing is here a combination of genes is involved, so you are doing something new (emergent properties, if you will). The uniqueness of an individual’s genome is due to the large number of genes which can exist in many forms (alleles). It is not impossible that two individuals (other than identical twins) would have identical genomes, but it’s highly unlikely. Thus, your wild-type gene would not be lost with the death of the possessor. Many others would have that allele but in combination with a different assortment of other genes. I hope this clears up what I meant to say.

14. 

    fritzoid said, 5 months ago

    Thanx for the help, fennec. I’m still not sure what specific issue the cartoonist is commenting on, though. I just think there are too many possibilities involved for me to say either “patenting genes (or genomes) is OK” or “not OK.”