Legislation Just Sold You Out

Can you believe I actually researched the specifics of todays post? (Granted I'm half asleep right now, so please bear with me, else I'll wake up later today and forget half the things that are whizzing about this brain of mine). I read this book, "Next," by Michael Crichton (coincidentally the same author to pen "Jurassic Park") and it's based in a world where genetics has advanced so far into the next age that transgenic chimps and talking bilingual orangutans stand next to a cure for drug addiction and as it turns out, proof that Blondes are actually genetically smarter: it all hinges on Gene Patenting - which if you ask me, is all kinds of scary.

On the book itself: This is a delicate assessment. Suffice to say, it was an interesting read. The book was so enamored with technical detail however, that it was a real schlep to get through. Now, I'm not really a science person (I never did study physics at school) but I'm quite bright (like the yellow crayon in the box bright) - fact - and it was one of those books where I'd read a few paragraphs to get the gist and then go back and re-read it to understand the scientific jargon. The only reason I persevered I suppose, was because the issue it addressed seemed to be one that we might be facing in the not so distant future. 

Ok, lets start with Patenting: a Patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by national government to an inventor over an invention - this basically means that they would then own that particular invention, thus preventing others from making, using, selling and distributing the patented invention without their permission (wikipedia - check it out if you must). 

Now, Gene Patenting: A Gene Patent is a patent on a specific isolated gene sequence, its chemical composition, processes for obtaining or using it - basically everything that connects to it. This now means, that if a company is granted a patent on a certain gene, they own it. Imagine, owning a gene? 

And this is where the controversy begins, because, how do you own a gene? Patenting is used to protect the rights of a created invention, while genes are no invention at all - they're a fact of nature and you cannot own a fact of nature. Genes have been in existence for millions of years, before the arrival of Man. To now claim ownership of it, is quite frankly, incongruous. 

Yet, it has been done: The United States government granted its first patent on Adrenalin; the second patent was Insulin; the third patent was VitaminB; as of 2010 approximately 40,000 United States Patents exist that cover an estimated 2000 Human Genes (about 10% of the Human Genome). 

Patent protection may protect an invention, but it also encourages others to create their own: like Mercedes are protected by a patent, but that doesn't prevent the production of BMW's. You can't do that with genes, because you cannot CREATE a gene: the patent is made up of 100% authentic information that's already been in existence for millions of years: it cannot be revolutionised further. 

And so, because genes are, inarguably, a fact of nature, patents now morph into an undeserved monopoly. 

"It's like allowing somebody to patent noses. You couldn't make Kleenex, nasal sprays, masks, makeup or perfumes because they all rely on some aspect of the nose. You could put suntan lotion on your body, but not on your nose, because any modification of your nose would violate the patent on noses. Chefs could be sued for making fragrant dishes unless they paid the nose royalty. And so on." 

Would you agree that the whole idea of patenting noses is completely ridiculous? If every single person has one, how can any one person or company then own it? Now, apply that to Gene Patenting. We would all be walking around with some aspect of us being owned. 

Besides of which, 'knowledge is power'. Going back to the United States Patents: Myriad Genetics is a healthcare company, basically it's a molecular diagnostic (understanding the genetic basis of human diseases) company. Myriad patented two breast cancer genes and charged exorbitant prices to take the test when the cost to take a gene test is nothing as compared to developing a new drug. The patenting of the two genes, also prevented patients from receiving a second opinion. 

While the Myriad controversy was profane, there are much scarier consequences to Gene Patenting. For example, going back to 2003, the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) had 3 simultaneous patent claims filed over it. Because of this, research on the virus wasn't as deliberate and thorough as it should have been: a contagious virus with a 10% fatality rate, spreads to 2 dozen countries globally...and yet scientific research on it and its possible cures was restrained because of patent fears - researchers were scared off by legal sanctions and the possible consequences thereof if they didn't own the patent to the gene. It's also probably because of that, that more deaths occurred that could have been prevented, had the gene not been patented and research inhibited. 

Did you know that HIV is patented? Makes one wonder. 

Gene Patents are dangerous, especially in the avaricious world we live in. They sow the seeds for a tomorrow where we all may be walking about with some part of us being owned by this company or that; where treatments and possible cures for diseases are auctioned off to the highest bidder so that healthcare becomes a luxury; where companies begin to think that they then own the sanctity of our bodies, because they own the genes that are in them - which conclusively suggests that companies who own the patents to genes can then plunder the body of any person who contains them, legally; the destruction of integrity; an era of Chattel Slavery, Ladies and Gentlemen. 

It's a chilling thought is it not?