Patents in genetics - related to the Entrepreneurial Growth class - Module 6

A brief definition of the patents can be found in Merriam Webster Dictionary:
“a writing securing for a term of years the exclusive right to make, use, or sell an invention”

Reading Module 6 for the Entrepreneurial Growth course, we find out that there are 3 types of patents:
1. Utility Patents: protects the working mechanism of a certain mechanism or service (ex: Intel micro chips or the patented specialized software of a company)
2. Design Patent: protects the way an object looks
3. Plant Patent: protects new plants that reproduce asexually (various species of vines)

Doing some individual research, I found out about a 1980’s case, which gave birth to another type of patent. I am referring to the Diamond vs. Chakrabarty Case.
Just to give you a quick briefing on the case:
-Dr Chakrabarty was a renowned genesist who modified a species of bacteria in his laboratory. The result was that the bacteria would eat oil. When thrown on a spot of oil, the bacteria would start to eat and decompose the chemical into other, non- greasy substances, after which it would starve.
-he saw this as a great invention so he went to the US Patent Office in order to get the protection rights. But the Office stated that the law says is clear that no living organisms can be patented. So they denied his request
-Dr Chakrabarty appealed the decision. Helped by General Electric, he went all the way to the US Custom Court Appeal and eventually the case was overruled in Chakrabarty's favor. "the fact that micro-organisms are alive is without legal significance for purposes of the patent law. […] A live, human-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter under [Title 35 U.S.C.] 101. Respondent's micro-organism constitutes a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within that statute.”( John Paull “Beyond Equal From Same but Different to the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence” M/C Journal 11(2) May 2008 ). The court saw the invention more as a detergent than as a living organism.
-after seven years, the US Patent Office declared that it issued the decree through which all life can be patented, except a full grown human being.

Patenting parts of life was admitted by a series of countries, including SUA, Japan and most countries in Europe, but some remain skeptic about the implications of such an action and decided to disagree on the issue (Canada for example).

Joel Bakan’s movie “Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power” discusses more on this issue. The movie documents how genetic companies started to patent all discovered genomes as soon as the law was issued. They invested huge amount of capital in research in order to discover and isolate genes as fast as possible.
New species were created, like the Harvard mouse (see picture), a lab rat that requires permission from the institution in order to be used.

Now there are a lot of moral dilemmas involved here since genetic companies will eventually develop and own parts of human body.
The "good part" is that humans will have the possibility to “renew” themselves, raising their living expectancy. Many diseases will be cured or be one step closer to being cured (cancer in its initial phases can be extracted from the organism, and the infected organ replaced with a new one). Also the black organ market will be part of history.
Further more, consumption will increase (food industry – people will have less fear of destroying their bodies, since organs like kidneys or liver can be “replaced”; cigarette industry – don’t quit, just buy a new lung). I am starting to sound a bit Sci Fi, but there is some truth in what I just wrote.

I hope that this article had some impact on the way you see the future of genetic medicine. But for now, we just have to stay with the stem cell research ;)


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
http://www.bustpatents.com/
http://digital-law-online.info/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/
John Paull “Beyond Equal From Same but Different to the Doctrine of Substantial Equivalence” M/C Journal 11(2) May 2008