James Watson, Co-Discoverer Of DNA's Structure, Says 'Patenting Human Genes Was Lunacy'
from the and-he-should-know dept
Techdirt has been covering the important Myriad Genetics case for a while. Although the CAFC decided that isolated genes could be patented, the Supreme Court has asked the appeals court to review the case in light of the former's rejection of medical diagnostic patents.
The importance of this case is highlighted by the amicus curiae brief filed by James Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the structure of DNA, for which they received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962
(along with Maurice Wilkins for related work.) Watson makes his views plain from the start:
what the Court misses, I fear, is the fundamentally unique nature of the human gene. Simply put, no other molecule can store the information necessary to create and propagate life the way DNA does. It is a chemical entity, but DNA’s importance flows from its ability to encode and transmit the instructions for creating humans. Life’s instructions ought not be controlled by legal monopolies created at the whim of Congress or the courts.
Watson recalls discussions on the topic during the $3 billion Human Genome Project to sequence human DNA as completely as possible:
Even at the early stages of the project, we were concerned about the issue of patenting human genes. Most, although not all, eminent scientists recognized that human genes should not be monopolized by patents. I believed at the time -- and continue to believe -- that the issue of patenting human genes went to the very crux of whether the information encoded by human DNA should be freely available to the scientific community. Some twenty years ago, I explained that patenting human genes was lunacy, and I was not a lone voice.
He also points out some concrete problems with gene patents in terms of their impact on assays (tests) that involve multiple genes:
If each of the human genes used in a new multi-gene assay are subject to patents, I fear that useful tests requiring multiple human genes will be unnecessarily delayed, become prohibitively expensive, or, worse yet, never be made available to patients at all. For a new assay using hundreds of human genes, the sea of patents and patent applications would create hundreds, if not thousands, of individual obstacles to developing and commercializing the assay. The best way, in my view, to resolve this problem is to eliminate the unnecessary patenting of human genes.
As this makes clear, if gene patents are permitted, patent thickets are likely to develop, which will delay new tests, and make them more expensive.
Aside from his position as one of the people that discovered the structure of DNA in the first place, Watson has another reason why his views on patenting genes carry some weight. As he relates in a footnote to his submission to the court:
Amusingly, after I gave my first presentation of our DNA structure in June 1953, Leó Szilárd, the Hungarian physicist and inventor of the nuclear chain reaction, asked whether I would patent the structure. That, of course, was out of the question.
Like Tim Berners-Lee with the World Wide Web, Watson declined to patent one of the most important discoveries of all time because he believed it was the right thing to do. Let's hope the appeals court agrees with him when it hands down its decision on gene patents.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
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: dna, gene patents, james watson, lunacy, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Royalties
I will obtain the patent on Water... and then become the wealthiest human in the Universe.
Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Royalties
A method for the production and usages of dihydrogen monoxide.
Patent pending
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Royalties
A method for the production and usages of dihydrogen monoxide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Royalties
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Royalties
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_hoax
If you go on the streets and ask people to ban any dangerous chemical they will sign it LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
discoveries
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: discoveries
Having said that, the world wide web is a perfect example of an invention which is a remix. Sir Tim freely admits that very little of the underlying technology was fundamentally original. MIME (on which HTTP is based) and SGML (on which HTML is based) were pre-existing standards. He did "invent" the URL/URI (and subsequently apologised for the double slash), but the key innovation was the exact combination of pre-existing technology and the brilliant execution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: discoveries
The double slash wasn't original too; it was from the Apollo Domain (see http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/06/sir-tim-berners-lee/). The only original part seems to be the http: in front, and would not surprise me if that came from somewhere else too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Watson, Co-Discoverer of DNA Structure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: James Watson, Co-Discoverer of DNA Structure...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Germlines
Would a potential parent with a patented sequence have to get permission from the patent holder before procreating? What about not wearing a condom during sex, or donating sperm? Would the child be bound by some contract that was entered into before they were born? The consequences here are quite staggering with any gene patents in the picture.
Or even without germline therapies, what happens if a patented sequence is the same as one that arose naturally through random mutation? We can't get independent invention sorted out, what makes anyone think we could even remotely handle that in our legal system?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now a days, despite more and stricter patents, almost nothing comes with a technical manual anymore, they only have a users manual and most of the time a modern users manual is very brief (it maybe twenty pages for like three languages leaving like six or seven pages per language, depending on what you buy. A users manual for a computer motherboard and a car maybe more pages).
I thought patents were supposed to encourage people to divulge more information. But they seem to do the exact opposite. Instead of encouraging companies to disclose more information patents actually discourage companies from disclosing information because doing so makes it far easier for a patent troll to simply read the manual, find potentially infringing information, and sue the company. Not disclosing the information may require the meritless patent troll to actually reverse engineer the product to find every possible infringement and this is far more difficult for a patent troll that's too stupid, lazy, and ignorant to build anything to do. and so companies are now much more afraid to disclose information about how their products work in fear of getting sued. Why do so when it can expose you to so much more liability?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"How do you know I copied your invention?"
"You bought the how-to manual."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"you had to prove that the defendant copied your invention from something you did"
If you had to prove that the defendant copies your invention then that would make you the plaintiff. If you are the plaintiff then how can you use the independent invention 'defense' when you are on the offense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(every single PS2 game sold here, from memory, wasted the first three or four pages of it's manual on an explanation of the European content rating system and instruction as to How to Set Up a PS2. (which had it's own manual, with better instructions on just that) also: how to insert the disk. the manuals were 30 pages long, tops, usually closer to 20, and often repeated THAT part in German and one or two other european languages as well. it wasn't unusual for the bit that was Actually About the Game to only be in english though. (then again, the games themselves were less and less likely to have other language options as time went by))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't want to compromise the "purity" of their genes that the breed with their own relatives... Nice going...whoever crazy enough to said that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no ownership of people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no ownership of people
Actually it is equally obnoxious for corporate managers to use corporate (ultimately shareholder) resources to engage in political speech without a vote of the shareholders to establish a corporate position, and for union bosses to use union (ultimately worker) resources to engage in political speech without a vote of the rank-and-file to establish a union position.
The free speech rights of corporations are derivative from those of the shareholders, just as those of unions are derivative from those of the members. I suspect fixing both problems in one go, by enacting a law requiring that all political "speech" be approved by majority vote of the shareholders (for joint-stock corporations) or members (for membership-corporations like labor unions) would pass judicial review just fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no ownership of people
http://i.imgur.com/AUEf2.jpg
Please!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It might be the methods such as being required to take X medication to even have your shit looked at.
I wanna patent a gene as well then anyone with it that I don't like I will demand it be removed and since it's not possible I'll just demand that they should be executed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[/bob]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Patent the DNA. Then you can't marry someone outside the family due to the fact you family's DNA is patented...
*Cue Inter-family breeding...*
Don't blame anyone if something came out wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Also, "Little Chubby Chicken Pirate Mike"? How could you tell that wasn't parody?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
since when has a court used common sense in a ruling, particularly when there is going to be loads a money involved? can you imagine the reduction in medicinal discovery if a laboratory has to get permission every time it wants to use dna in experiments? what a joke!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
It has yet to be determined exactly what Lee invented. Still, any of his work which was public can be used against anyone trying to patent related technologies if Lee's work predated theirs, so have a beer and relax. As typical, you get all worked into a lather over things that aren't worth your frantics. As always, all you know about patents is you don't have any.
The Constitution says �To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries�. Therefore, if an invention is useful and promotes science, it should be patentable. It�s that simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
patent technology, not subject matter
But what I would guess is that you would want to patent technology that would allow you to analyze the human genome.
Or if a report is made about some technology or therapeutic technique which is built on the employment of the current understanding of the genome, credit can be given for that specific interpretation of data.
It makes sense (to me) to patent technology. And it makes sense that the redistribution of data made available by the technology should include a reference to the original distribution source. But it makes zero sense to patent the *subject* of the research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watson can't shut up
Further a quick look on google shows many patents for James D. Watson. In any event elucidating the structure of DNA is not a patentable invention or in fact any invention at all.
Setting up a series of processes, devices, chemicals(including DNA) and steps leading to the diagnosis of one or more diseases is an invention and may deserve a patent (for 20 years).
The contention that a patent on some bit of DNA even uniquely Human DNA (and there isn't much of that) that provides a limited monopoly for 20 years and then COMPLETE PUBLIC access is a great wrong to humanity, while allowing people to suffer and die is morally ok is beyond a reasonable understanding. Patents enervate competition and capital to pursue solutions that solve problems for paying customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Watson can't shut up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm confused?
If I assign my rights to my genes away, as the Mayo Clinic has asked me to, what rights to those same genes do my children, who inherited the genes from me, have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intellectual Property Violation Case # 4846298ADTI-13.a90126.$/@#%���?.z
You have been found in violation of our Intellectual Property, Patent #1,297,082,978,643,204.j, A Patent Covering the Gene That Makes Blood Red.
Since it has been discovered that your blood is red, it is ordered that you give up said blood, and any red-like products in your body; as well as pay a fine not to be less than $1,853,061,067,081,921.99; and submit yourself to the nearest detention center for examination for any other genetic patent violations. If you are found to be in violation of any other patents, the offending violations will be immediately excised and you will be beaten into paying the appropriate fine, again not to be less than $1,853,061,067,081,921.99.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Citizen Corporation
666 Insanity Way
Washington, DC, 00666
[ link to this | view in chronology ]