Groom 1

Charles J Groom

ENG 1201

Dr. Cassel

6 July 2020

Gene Patents: Use and Drive

Patents are often a very important part of innovation in the business world. Patents were

created to help incentivize makers to innovate and create new products by offering a mini

monopoly to the person who created the product. In 2013, there was a Supreme Court Case about

the patentability of human genes. Why are scientists trying to patent human genes and what are

the effects of gene patenting?

There are many reasons that researchers would want to patent human genes. One of these

reasons is that research in the biomedical field is considerably expensive (Ryan). Granting

patents for gene research helps cover the cost of the research thus making it viable for the

researchers to conduct their research (Horn and Neuman). However, these patents can also drive

up the costs of genetic testing that could potentially save lives. Prior to 2013, companies like

Myriad were allowed to have patent monopolies. In Myriad’s case, they had a monopoly on

BCRA 1 and 2, which are useful for breast cancer tests. Because Myriad had a monopoly on

these genes, they could charge what they wanted for BCRA tests. Thus, testing cost around

$4,200 per test (Irish). So, genetic patents are beneficial for incentivizing research, however, they

can be unbeneficial for those who need genetic testing. However, many feared that the absence

of patents would halt genetic research. As Sharon Levy says in her, The Supreme Court Gene-
 Groom 2

Patent Decision Will Inhibit Genetic Research, “The theory is that patent rights ultimately make

scientists more willing to share their useful results.” However, there are exceptions to this theory

(Levy).

Some critique that the phrasing of the question “are human genes patentable?” is unfair as

it connotes negative feelings towards the subject. When in reality, patents have encouraged “over

18,000 researchers [to] conduct studies on the BRCA 1/2 genes, publish over 8,000 papers, and

conduct over 130 clinical trials” (Horn and Neuman). So, patents are useful for encouraging

research and development on human genes which can help us cure serious illnesses (Jackson 43).

At the same time, if patents are used incorrectly they can actually cause problems, like in the

Myriad case (Levy).

One argument against patents is that they prevent companies and scientists from sharing

information with the public (Ryan). In Myriad’s case, this was true because of their monopoly on

the BCRA genes, they were able to collect more information on those genes than anyone else

(Levy). In most cases, however, the patent system makes information about the patents readily

available for the public. This is backed up by Jackson who says “in a sense, patents are the

antithesis of trade secrets, in which an investor decides not to disclose the invention to the

public” (40).

As for patent laws on human genes, In 1980 it was ruled that “anything "under the sun

that is made by man" was able to be patented (Ryan). This meant that researchers would have to
 Groom 3

isolate strands of DNA to get the make one that was technically not found in nature (Jackson).

After the 2013 Supreme Court Case made it impossible to patent genes, researchers now focus

on complementary DNA (cDNA) which does not occur in nature. As it stands now, cDNA is

patentable so “[r]aw sequence data will be freely available [...] but significant changes to the

sequence data will be protected” (Levy).

 Groom 4

Work Cited

Horn, Lawrence, and Kristin Neuman. "Gene Patents Promote Scientific Progress and Medical

Innovation." Human Genetics, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014.

Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-com.

sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010916214/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid

=d57e7c9d. Accessed 6 July 2020. Originally published as "The Red Herring of Human

Gene Patents," Baltimore Sun, 28 Apr. 2013.

Irish, Kim. "Human Gene Patents Hurt Women." Human Genetics, edited by Louise I. Gerdes,

Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

https://link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010916216/OVIC?u=

dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=24670e6e. Accessed 27 June 2020. Originally published as

"BCAction Testimony at USPTO Hearing on Genetic Diagnostic Testing,"

www.bcaction.org, 9 Mar. 2012.

Jackson, Myles W. The Genealogy of a Gene : Patents, HIV/AIDS, and Race. The MIT Press,

2015. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e900xww&AN=

961043&site=ehost-live.

Levy, Sharon. "The Supreme Court Gene-Patent Decision Will Inhibit Genetic Research."

Human Genetics, edited by Louise I. Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing

Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet

 Groom 5

.org/apps/doc/EJ3010916217/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=911cf1af. Accessed

6 July 2020. Originally published as "Our Shared Code: The Myriad Decision and the

Future of Genetic Research," Environmental Health Perspectives, vol. 121, no. 8, Aug.

2013.

Ryan, M. Andrea. "Patents on Human Genes Are Ethical and Necessary." Genetic Engineering,

edited by Lisa Yount, Greenhaven Press, 2002. Current Controversies. Gale In Context:

Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale-com.sinclair.ohionet.org/apps/doc/EJ3010212228

/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=ad8cdf3d. Accessed 27 June 2020. Originally

published as "Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions," 2000.