New Study Shows Gene Patents Stifle Innovation And Put People At Risk

from the and-there-you-go dept

Fri, Apr 23rd 2010 9:52am — Mike Masnick

Following the recent ruling in the Myriad Genetics case, that gene patents are invalid, it was amusing (if it a bit frightening) to watch some patent attorneys, who specialize in the field, react as if the world had been turned upside down, and that major scientific advances in health and medicine were all going to collapse into a giant blackhole. Of course, they had no evidence to back that up. As we've seen time and time again, the evidence suggests exactly the opposite -- and now there's even more evidence, specifically when it comes to patents on genes and related processes. Justin Levine points us to an Economist article highlighting a series of recently released studies that found that gene patents are quite damaging:

Even more striking is the claim made by the Duke researchers that patent exclusivity is not necessary to spur innovation in genetic testing. Dr Cook-Deegan argues that testing, unlike pricey drug development, has low barriers to entry and is relatively cheap, so a monopoly is not required to lure investors. As evidence, he points to the case of cystic fibrosis: unlike breast cancer, no monopoly patent blocks access to the relevant gene, and dozens of rival testing companies flourish.

The research also found that thanks to gene patent monopolies, many people may suffer in being unable to get access to important tests, and worse (as was the case in the Myriad suit), the monopoly kills off the potential of getting any sort of second opinion -- which can be incredibly important in properly judging the situation. Of course, I fully expect the typical group of patent attorneys to ignore this evidence yet again. The full set of studies, led by Robert Cook-Deegan, at Duke University can be read online. It was done in response to a request from the US Dept. of Health -- so perhaps the US gov't is finally starting to look at actual evidence in figuring out patent policy as well. The different studies look at the impact of patents on a variety of different diseases. The results definitely differed depending on the case study, but it's difficult to see any evidence of patents helping with innovation in any of the studies.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: gene, patents, studies

34 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:01am

The monopoly hungry U.S. is going to ensure that special interest groups get their monopoly rents no matter what. They would lie, cheat, lobby, and do whatever it takes with no regard for truth, honesty, human life, progress, or morals just to get their way. and the U.S., time and time again, gives monopolists their way exactly as they want with no compromises whatsoever in each and every situation (ie: taxi cab monopolies, copyright lasts forever minus one day, telco/cableco monopolies, the government substantially restricts competition with just about everything in this country).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:04am

RJR: But if it weren't for Gene Patents then nature wouldn't be able to generate genes!

Seriously though, how could one attain a patent on a gene in the first place? Aren't they just patenting a (mostly natural) series of ATGC? In which case, shouldn't they be abusing the copyright system and not the patent system?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:11am

Re:
Nature already has a copyright on genes and it expired ... say ... thousands of years ago?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:19am

there is nothing good about an opinion based article that isnt attributed to anyone. for all we know the article could be written by the masnick himself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:20am

Re:
Says the anonymous TAM who never debates the author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:21am

Re:
Actually TAM, your trolliness aside, who did write that article? I don't think "The Economist print edition" is a person's name...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamR (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:22am

Re:
Hi TAM(pon), i see your still your bloody used up self.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:27am

Re:
Debate the idea, not the person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:27am

Re:
there is nothing good about an opinion based article that isnt attributed to anyone. for all we know the article could be written by the masnick himself.

there is nothing good about an opinion based article that isnt attributed to anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:37am

Re: Re: Wait...
Does one get a copyright on a derivative work? Because if one does, then Nature is granted a new copyright on each gene-derived creation (i.e. child).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:40am

Re: Re:
Okay, this has gone far enough. Half the thread is telling TAM to STFU. But I genuinely want to know: Who wrote the linked article?

I did read it. I do want to discuss the points brought up in the piece. But because I took an interest in it, I do actually want to know who the author is.

So who is it? The article on the page linked does not attribute an author.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:46am

The article cited by Levine cuts both ways, something that he seems not to appreciate.

The individual studies for various genetic disorders by and large concluded that such "patents" are not a significant impediment to genetic research. To the extent on study opined differently, it was predicated on comments that were anecdotal at best.

Sorry, but this study is not another "nail in the coffin" as some seem want to declare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: Re:
thank you for getting the point. if the article was written by al gore, it would be amazing. If it was written by the masnick, it would be more hopeless self-promotion. while the idea isnt to be debating the author it is important in such a public declaration to know where the writer stands.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:50am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Says the anonymous TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 10:54am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, I would take it from a CwF+RtB point of view.

"Wow. I really liked that article! I want to read more by this author and give economist lots of ad impressions! I'll just click the author's name and be directed to a list of his/her recent articles. I will then read each of them because I like this author's style! Wait, there's no author here...*lost revenue*"

The discussion of the content should be the same if the author is Al Gole, Mike Masnick, Anonymous, or a blogger named bonerMan15. But in terms of a publication, readers expect an author to be named for recognition purposes and to help frame where they are coming from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:01am

Re:
"there is nothing good about an opinion based article that isnt attributed to anyone. "

Yeaaaah. So since you haven't seen fit to do as much, I'mma just let this one lie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:03am

What is the big deal? I would have thought that Levi's would have patents on their genes, but others still make them.

Of course it does look like the good doctor in this case states that patents are needed on drug development "Dr Cook-Deegan argues that testing, unlike pricey drug development, has low barriers to entry and is relatively cheap, so a monopoly is not required to lure investors."

Sounds like he supports patents for drug development.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:05am

Re: Re:
Just under 6000 to be exact!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's bonerman12, thank you very much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lfroen (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 11:43am

Title must be "only in US", since in rest of the world you can't copyright/patent/trademark laws of nature. But - in US there's _discussion_ (sic!) about it
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 12:45pm

Re: Re:
Yeah, the other ac is basically the pot that called the kettle black.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 23 Apr 2010 @ 12:46pm

Re:
there is nothing good about an opinion based article that isnt attributed to anyone. for all we know the article could be written by the masnick himself.

Looks like someone doesn't realize that the Economist NEVER uses bylines.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 4:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
for me the point is to know if the person is using real and supporting information or just talking an agenda. having an opinion piece and then not naming the person with the opinion is misleading. it makes it look more like factual news and less like opinion. it is very disorienting. opinions come from people not the void. i dont have the same probably with comments because comments are just opinion anyway. we know everyone commenting here is expressing opinion or has an agenda, but we should always address the comment and not the commenter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 4:57pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hi there TAM, world class hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2010 @ 5:50pm

Re:
Your exactly right, it's one chip at a time. They know it's just a matter of time before they take more power.

1 degree
[ link to this | view in thread ]
darryl, 24 Apr 2010 @ 9:01am

Patents and Testing !
Quoting someone anonymous, and claiming that their information is even close to factual is poor reporting on you're part.

You're also misinterpreting the issues, trying to spin it to suid you're biases.

The article you qoute (the unnamed article), talks about the cost and ability to do DRUG TESTING, as opposed to drug patents. It says the entry cost for testing is lower blah blah.

You spin this to mean that, this idea can be applied to what is admitted to be expensive and risky drug development.

Drug development and drug testing are two TOTALLY different things.

As the artile you quote says, it costs vast sums of money to develop drugs, and make the approval system (FDA and such) BEFORE ANY outside testing or human testing can be carried out.

That cost in development is not mitigated by testing by third parties, those thier parties according to you DO NOT develop drugs, they do not have the resources to do so.

They only test after the drug has been developed and in-house testing and passed through FDA (type) approval processes. That is the expensive part.

And that is the part that does not, and will not occur unless that drug development company has some form of protection on their IP. (the cost of drug development and approval).

All the effective, and good modern drugs these days are and have to be developed by large and well funded institutions. It's high risk, they can spend billions on a drug and it may not work or may not achieve FDA approval. this is a risk the third party testers to not have. That and the zero development and approval costs mean a cheaper market entry cost.

But that says nothing about the cost and work necessary to get the drug to the human testing state that you speak about.

If what you try to claim is correct, (and it's not), then countries like india would be the world leaders in modern drug development.
Not the US with it's patent system on drugs.

Why cant you patent DOING SOMETHING with genes, as opposed to the genes themselves. Many inventions are defived from natural products, things nature produce, if you do something inventive or develop a new method to use that material (genes, wood, water, steam, mud, grass....) then you have every right to apply for and receive a patent for that.

Just because something is 'natural' does not automatically stop it from being applied in new and innovative and inventive ways. And receiving patents for it.

If for example, you work out that snake venom and water mixed in a special (proprietary way) creates rocket fuel you have every right to patent the "A method of creating rocket fuel using snake venom and water"

All natural, just like Asprin it's a drug, it's patented and it's naturally occuring. The invention is finding out that if you eat a tiny amount of it you're headache goes away.

What's the difference between wood, water, asprin, or DNA ? none. It's what you do with it and how you do it that matters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 9:24am

Re: Patents and Testing !
If you love straw men so much why don't you marry one?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 4:31pm

Darryl, what are you talking about, the article doesn't talk about drug testing but genetic testing. "Dr Cook-Deegan argues that testing, unlike pricey drug development, has low barriers to entry and is relatively cheap, so a monopoly is not required to lure investors."

I don't understand what you are arguing about because the article and source (Dr. Cook-Deegan) even states that drug development needs patent rights for investors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 5:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Wait...
Well, being that patents are opt out and nature never opted out of its patents. I wonder what license natures uses to license its works?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2010 @ 5:01pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait...
errr... I meant copyrights *
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 12:15am

Re: Re:
i noticed that. i dont have a problem with no bylines on news pieces as they arent personal opinion. but opinion pieces should be attributed. without attribution, a sneaky person running a blog could be a piece run there and then use it to bootstrap themselves. you know how bootstrapping works, right masnick?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 11:20am

Re: Re: Re:
I've never trusted the Economist with their "intellectual property laws aren't perfect" stance. What do they know about economics, anyway?

I blame the sneaky people. The ones without names. Sneaky people and their anonymity.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2010 @ 12:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean like yourself?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 25 Apr 2010 @ 11:51pm

Re: Re: Re:
i noticed that. i dont have a problem with no bylines on news pieces as they arent personal opinion. but opinion pieces should be attributed.

It's a news piece, not an opinion piece.
[ link to this | view in thread ]