A US Congresswoman has introduced two bills challenging the country鈥檚 gene patenting system. Though unlikely to become law, they highlight growing concern that gene patents are blocking basic research and preventing doctors from carrying out genetic tests.
Under US patent law, when you patent a gene, you own the rights to all uses of the gene to detect or treat a disease. 鈥淭he patent holder can prevent my doctor from looking in my body to see if I have that gene,鈥� Lynn Rivers, the Michigan Democrat who introduced the bills, told Congress last week.
Other researchers can鈥檛 even do basic research into the gene, or develop treatments based on it, without infringing the patent.
Advertisement
A company that owns a gene patent can also make doctors pay royalties each time they use a diagnostic test, or even force them to use the company鈥檚 own test. After the gene for the iron overload condition haemochromatosis was patented, for example, 30 per cent of labs surveyed stopped testing for the disease-causing gene variant, or developing such tests.
Rivers鈥檚 first bill would exempt doctors carrying out diagnostic tests based on patented gene sequences from any patent infringement penalties. It is similar to a law passed in 1996 that exempts doctors using patented surgical techniques. 快猫短视频s carrying out non-commercial research into patented sequences would also be exempt. To speed up research, however, anyone applying for gene patents would have to make their sequence information public within 30 days of filing, instead of the current 18 months.
鈥淭he bill does not say you should not patent genes. But it does say researchers should be allowed to infringe without penalty so they can do their research,鈥� says Paul Raslavicus, president of the College of American Pathologists, one of the groups endorsing the bill.
But biotech companies, whose worth depends largely on the patents they hold, want to keep things as they are. Lila Feisee, a spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization in Washington DC, claims the bill could hamper research into disease-causing genes by making it unprofitable to look for them. She insists that patent holders do allow others to do basic research. 鈥淭he system works,鈥� she says. 鈥淭hey are looking to solve a problem that just doesn鈥檛 exist.鈥�
But Raslavicus says many researchers have been served cease-and-desist orders by companies that hold gene patents. And even if the law came into force, he says, patent holders could still make money by selling the fastest or most accurate genetic test kits.
Rivers鈥檚 second bill might lead to even greater changes. If it was passed, it would force the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to carry out a fundamental review of the entire gene-patenting system. But neither bill is likely to get far. Congress has been reluctant to weaken patent rights in the past, even where the incentive has been cheaper treatments for AIDS or drugs for victims of biowarfare.