The human genome should be patented

Michael Goldman, a patent attorney with the firm Nixon, Hargrave, in Rochester, N.Y.
The purpose of a patent is to allow an inventor time to develop a salable product. During the 20 years of patent protection, another party can use the invention to develop a product only with a licensing agreement. (However, basic researchers can use it freely.) This period of exclusivity fosters commercial development of the invention by discouraging competition. “The claims section, at the back of the patent application, defines what the patent rights are. The object of a patent is to prevent others from making, using, and selling what’s covered,” therefore patenting a gene inhibits and controls research on it. Research after patenting is restricted, entitled and limited to whichever entity discovered it and to entities which pay royalties to this entity. Either way when a gene is patented by a biotech , it is that biotech that profiteers immensely for simply discovering it without making any innovation whatsoever.

Too risky, and at what cost?

It’s not animals alone that are at stake but human beings as well. Genetically modified animals/animal-products created for the benefit of human beings can prove detrimental for human health. Take the insulin milk mentioned on the left, while it maybe be wonderful for diabetes’ patients it can cause hypoglycemia , erratic blood glucose levels and therefore a number of related diseases in normal people. And this is assuming experiments such as these do “not” go wrong, which is very unlikely.
[[http://www.safe.org.nz/Campaigns/Genetic-engineering-of-animals/]]

“Increased animal suffering

Genetically modified animals are prone to increased levels of suffering. Previous experiments show GM calves, for example, are more likely to be born with serious deformities. GM cows can develop gangrenous udders and mastitis and are highly susceptible to respiratory and septic conditions.
AgResearch seeks to use recipient animals as surrogate mothers to carry GM embryos. Recipient animals are often aborted at around 60 days and the foetus cells harvested to produce new embryos.
Harm to our environment

AgResearch plans to have research or testing facilities around New Zealand, including in the Waikato, Canterbury and Southland regions. The risk of a breach in biosecurity or site contamination can never be eliminated and would jeopardise New Zealand’s reputation for clean, safe, natural food. Animal waste from GM animals will be used as compost or sprayed onto fields without adequate monitoring of the environmental effects.

Unethical conduct
AgResearch will genetically engineer animals with human genes. They will deliberately create sick animals as ‘models’ of human disease despite the Bioethics Council calling for an ethical review of such practices.

Risk of disease
New Zealand animals are currently free of many highly contagious diseases such as Mad Cow Disease (BSE) and Scrapie, making New Zealand an attractive testing ground for overseas biotech investors. Genetic modification of animals risks creating new diseases in animals or in people consuming milk and other products made from the animals”

“However, considerable hope has been pinned on a new method of creating pluripotent stem cells that are capable of producing all the cells of the embryo except for the extraembryonic tissues.
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are obtained after somatic cells are transduced (infected) with a vector expression a set of special transcription factors. Such iPS cells are practically indistinguishable from embryonic stem (ES) cells in morphology, gene expression and pluripotency. The researcher considered such cells “the most promising candidates for future somatic NT experiments,” and stressed “the importance of deriving these cells in livestock species.”
It is not clear whether the new experiments mentioned by the Dominion Post [1] on creating transgenic animals were done with iPS cells. If so, the high rates of death and abnormalities have hardly diminished.

It is time to end all attempts to create GM animals or to clone animals by nuclear transplant. It is unacceptable in terms of animal suffering and the serious hazards to health as [2].”[[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php]]

In this case the tool itself is noxious, it doesn’t matter who is using it or whether it’s in good hands so to speak. If GM is inevitable so is animal testing, human testing and the adverse consequences of testing living things. There is no safe method to perform genetic tests and fatalities are common, the ‘imagined’ boon of genetic modification is not justification for it’s continued usage.

“A second objection to patenting genes is that DNA is a product of nature, not human ingenuity. The Council for Responsible Genetics, a Cambridge, Mass.-based organization of scientists, public health advocates, and consumers, takes this view. They have an online petition that states: “The plants, animals, and microorganisms comprising life on Earth are part of the natural world into which we are all born. The conversion of these species, their molecules, or parts into corporate property through patent monopolies is counter to the interests of the peoples of this country and of the world. No individual, institution, or corporation … should be able to hold patents on organs, cells, genes, or proteins, whether naturally occurring, genetically altered, or otherwise modified.”” -[[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-3.1/lewis.html]] Genes are not invented but found, patenting a discovery is the legal equivalent to ‘finders keepers, losers weepers’ finding something is not the same as having the right to exploit it and sell it freely.

Point of information: Actually the answer the question is “No you cannot”, even when land ownership is disputed. The story of the man who inadvertently caused the California gold rush exemplifies this point: ” Sutter attempted to keep the discovery a secret and ordered his men not to breathe a word of it until he could obtain official title to the mineral rights in Coloma. This land belonged to the Culluma Indians and had not been included in the 48,000-acre grant he received from Mexican Governor Alvarado a decade earlier. But who was going to complain if he used it for his mill? After all, the entire California territory was in the process of being ceded to the United States, so ownership was, well, unsettled at best.

Unfortunately for Sutter, he was not able to keep the hoards of miners off the land around the mill, nor did he become its lawful owner, and the discovery of gold turned out to be his ruin. His valley settlement was all but deserted with the onslaught of the Gold Rush, except for squatters on his land. There was no one left to tend the Fort’s businesses, livestock, or crops. The last years of Sutter’s life were spent at the nation’s capitol trying in vain to convince Congress to compensate him for his losses brought on by the California Gold Rush. He died a poor man in Pennsylvania.”-[[http://www.comspark.com/chronicles/golddisc.htm]]

Firstly a patient (the owner of the land being dug up for genes) should give consent before having genes extracted from his/her body. (The current U.S legislation does not require this)
Secondly the patient should be informed of the monies to be obtained for the sale, study and development of what is extracted from his/her body.
Patenting genes removes a patient’s right to know, to not be owned in part or whole and the right to object to being exploited.

“In 2003, Ian Wilmut, who pioneered the technology abandoned it for cloning animals [3] (Death Sentence on Cloning, SiS 19), stating that he would use NT only for creating human cells for tissue repair and for studying human diseases. However, the discovery that ordinary human cells could be induced to become stem cells had made NT completely redundant [4].

In NT cloning of normal non-GM animals, at most 10 per cent of cloned embryos selected for implantation survive the trials [1]. (In terms of total embryos made by NT, it would be about 1 percent.) The main problems were spontaneous abortions and hydrops, where the surrogate mother’s uterus fills up with water, and the animal has to be put down”

[[http://www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php]]
[[http://goo.gl/VjFrM]]

A part of a human being can not and should not be patented. Patenting discoveries as opposed to inventions is problematic and detrimental to the human race because while invention is usually done by a few people, anyone can ‘discover’ or find things. And gene patenting is not simply a matter of finding a gene sequence never seen before but of barring anyone else from making positive use of that discovery. The right to invent anything around that genetic sequence is thus harnessed. This unethical on the grounds that people have certain rights over their bodies and what is inside our bodies. We have the right to tattoo, cut or paint ourselves. We have the right to eat junk food or poison or anything of the like. We have the right to ‘our’ cells, hormones and genes. For scientists to take our genes simply because they saw them under a mechanical probe is equivocal to a midwife claiming ownership of a baby’s back because s/he saw it first. Or Galileo patenting the sun for he saw more of it through his telescope than anyone else. [[http://www.lucidcafe.com/library/96feb/galileo.html]]

“”The ACLU and the patent foundation say Myriad’s refusal to license the patents broadly has meant that women who fear they may be at risk of breast or ovarian cancer are prevented from having anyone but Myriad look at the genes in question.

During a lengthy hearing in a packed courtroom, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet was asked by lawyers for the plaintiffs to strike down the validity of the patents, while a lawyer for the defendants called for the lawsuit to be tossed toss out. The judge did not immediately rule. Christopher Hansen, an ACLU lawyer, told Sweet that researchers deserved praise but not patents for winning the race to isolate an important part of the body. He said important medical research was being hampered because the patents for “BRCA1” and “BRCA2” genes prohibit the study of the genes by others.
“New forms and testing and new ways of using the gene have been inhibited,” Hansen said. “That’s not good for womens’ health.”

Hansen argued that the patents were awarded for the discovery of an “ancient secret of nature.” He added: “A patent is not a reward for effort.””