OT: Somehow, Jim, I think perhaps your "technique of manipulating a gene" thing is a bit, er, detached from what's actually going on. A quick search of the NYT brought up this article from all of a week ago:
Human Gene Patented as Potential Fighter Against AIDS (nyt 3/6/2000)
Finding a cure for people infected with the AIDS virus is an ambitious goal, but even more far-reaching may be the drive to create a vaccine that would keep people from getting the disease in the first place. Human Genome Sciences Inc., one of the companies leading the international race to map the entire human genome, has won a patent for a gene that might one day do both.
As far as the "technique of manipulating a gene" part:
Gene patents are categorized as chemical patents (as opposed to general and mechanical, or electrical, the other two categories established at the Patent and Trademark Office) and the government has clear rules about what kind of genetic discoveries can win a patent. But that doesn't mean the debate over gene patenting is settled.
And lest you think this is an isolated incident:
Thousands of gene patent applications are still pending. Only a fraction have been issued, and none of those have been tested or defended in court, but Human Genome continues to amass patents. The company now owns 112, one of the largest portfolios in the genomics industry.
Sure sounds like gene patents to me. And personally, yes, I think patenting a naturally occurring gene is somewhat bogus.
Cheers, Dan. |
