Let’s imagine that some person comes to you and says he or she has some rights to part of your DNA. That does sound really weird, doesn’t it? Your DNA is all yours; well, isn’t that what makes you *you*? The process of gene patenting was an effort by several companies, scientists, and even private individuals to try to patent genes over the past couple of decades-well, basically claim ownership of them. That is what one calls **gene patenting**, one of the largest ethical, scientific, and legal debates in modern medicine.
Now, in the most simplified explanation possible, a **gene patent** is when an individual or company claims rights to a series of DNA based on their own discovery and/or isolation. These are generally granted because through isolating and studying genes, the development of lifesaving medicines, diagnostics, and treatments become accessible. Sounds helpful, right?
However, here’s where the debate kicks in. Should anyone really “own” genetic information, something that occurs naturally in every living organism? Is this fair, or does it restrict medical progress?
This article explores the complex topic of gene patenting, diving deep into its history, arguments, and real-world implications. And yes, I’ll keep things simple and conversational—because something this important should be easy to understand.
How Did Gene Patenting Start?: A Quick History
First, the concept of gene patenting evolved in the **1980s** when biotechnology began to take off. During this period, firms realized that the isolation of specific genetic sequences would give rise to several medical and scientific developments.
One of those first cases was the case **of the patent on insulin**: it was an artificial method of producing insulin synthetically with manipulated bacteria, in general by manipulating bacteria’s DNA. The technology was revolutionary; the company got a patent for the innovation.
But that wasn’t all. In 1990, the Human Genome Project got underway. Scientists raced to identify every single gene in humans DNA-there are more than **20,000 genes** in all! As they worked, firms started filing patents on the gene sequences they uncovered. Put in perspective, at least 20% of human genes had been patented by 2005. You read correctly.
Perhaps the most egregious example involved a company named Myriad Genetics patenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes known to increase breast and ovarian cancer risk. Due to Myriad’s patents, no one was allowed to research or test those genes without permission. This ultimately sparked outrage, and the issue rose all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Arguments: Why Do People Support Gene Patenting?
Gene patenting does, at first glance, have a ring of unethicalness to it. After all, how can anyone own something that occurs naturally in the human body? But supporters of gene patenting say it has clear benefits. Here’s their side of the story:
1. Encouraging Innovation:
Researching genes is colossally expensive. Isolating, doing functional studies, and developing any medicines or treatments regarding a particular gene could run into millions of dollars. Patents allow companies to protect that investment. If there wasn’t a possibility of getting the patent, then they possibly would not make that investment.
In the case of highly critical research, say, into pharmaceuticals, a patent issuance plays an important role in ensuring profitability for companies that have invested enormous sums of money into the research process; otherwise, they would not undertake such projects.
2. Medical Breakthrough:
Gene patents have given way to discoveries that have helped cure or prevent cancer and other life-destruction diseases through genetic testing. Patented gene sequences have helped save quite literally countless numbers of lives.
3. Job Creation and Economic Growth:
Put differently, without patenting new technologies and methodologies, there isn’t even a biotech industry to speak of. It is protection that allows companies to grow, hire, and bring about economic growth in themselves through those protected inventions.
The Flip Side: Why Some People Oppose Gene Patenting
There is, however, an excellent case against patenting genes. Critics staunchly believe owning genetic information is not only immoral but destructive as well. Why?
1. Genes Are Natural, Not Invented:
Patents cover inventions, and things created by human beings. But genes exist in nature. Critics say nobody *invented* the BRCA gene, for example. It’s a part of the human body. Why should somebody own it?
Think of it this way: a person cannot claim the Grand Canyon just because he or she discovered it. Of course not-for genetics, like natural landmarks, exist in nature.
2. Promotion of Scientific Research:
Patents impede research; there was a patent on genes. This would involve a permit that most of the other researchers seek to study and test. As such, a fee has often been levied upon those needing a gene studied and tested, hence causing slow discoveries concerning a cure.
For instance, when Myriad Genetics had patents for BRCA genes, no other laboratory other than Myriad was allowed to offer independent genetic testing for breast cancer without giving Myriad its due. Testing became very expensive and thus beyond the reach of most patients.
3. High Costs to Patients:
Gene patents make medical testing and treatments unaffordable to many. Since it belongs exclusively to one company, the latter is free to price as high as it wants; this mostly translates into higher prices for patients, since there is no competition to speak of.
A friend of mine, Sarah, shared with me the sad story of how her aunt wanted to get tested for the BRCA gene but couldn’t afford the $3,000 price tag. If gene patenting didn’t exist, several labs could offer tests and have competitive prices.
4. Ethical Concerns:
Owning parts of the human genome feels morally wrong to many people. Your DNA is part of your identity-it’s personal. How can anyone else claim it as property?
The Turning Point: The Myriad Genetics Case
Gene patenting became most heated in 2013 when the **U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the Myriad Genetics case**. It had to address one big question: *Can human genes be patented?*
The answer was no. The Supreme Court maintained that naturally occurring DNA is not eligible for patent protection because it is not an invention.
This was a big victory for the scientists, the patients, and the ethical advocates because nobody could own a part of human DNA.
However, the court made it amply clear that while natural DNA cannot be patented, synthetic creation of DNA otherwise known as complementary DNA or cDNA can be patented. A window was opened so that further creativity was not hampered in keeping the door closed for natural genetic information.
What Does It Mean to You and Me?
The results of the ruling were far-reaching: medicine, research, and healthcare bottom lines all changed. What that means, in simple terms, is:
More Genetic Tests Available: Gene sequences cannot be patented, so more labs can offer genetic disorder tests, which means less cost to patients and thus more accessibility.
Faster Scientific Progress: Untroubled by threats of lawsuits over patent infringement, scientists can study and test genes. This means there would be quite a number of breakthroughs in research for disease applications.
Continued Innovation: Synthetic DNA is patentable in these companies. In other words, there are some avenues to incentivize companies to innovate.
The Global Picture: Gene Patenting Worldwide
While the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against gene patenting, the rules are different around the world. Some countries still permit the patenting of isolated gene sequences. The result is a patchwork of laws that can be very confusing to researchers and companies.
For example: – In Australia, isolated gene sequences were patentable until 2015 when their courts ruled similarly to the U.S.
The European Union allows patenting genes, but far more restricted laws are held.
The Future of Gene Patenting
Still, the debate does not end here. As **genetic engineering** improves and with the advent of the CRISPR technologies, a number of patent rights questions arise:
Does it make any sense that corporations can claim ownership of GMOs?
Who shall have rights over gene editing technologies?
These are issues that will continue to shape the future of medicine, technology, and ethics.
In Conclusion, Gene patenting appears to be one of those big, complicated, and faraway issues, but from the affordability of life treatments to ensuring that our genetic data is not owned by someone else, this debate touches on our health, our ethics, and our future.
Next time you read about a breakthrough in the field of genetic research, remember all the effort leading up to that point-and the regulations paving the way or barring such advances.
After all, at the end of the day, our DNA is ours alone. It is part of what defines us as human, and nothing should ever patent that fact.