November 29, 2008

Sick babies denied treatment in DNA row. "Babies with a severe form of epilepsy risk having their diagnosis delayed and their treatment compromised because of a company's patent on a key gene." [Via]
posted by homunculus 16 years ago
  • According to the article rights to the gene have been licensed from Bionomics, which has a few patents on epilepsy, among other things. Their very first patent, for instance, was patented by the University of Bonn, the University of Melbourne, and the Women's and Children's Hospital of Adelaide. I'm not saying that that is the relevant patent, only that they are apparently doing what we keep getting told Australia should be doing which is making money off research. I'm not sure where I fall on this type of thing. In this instance the test is (apparently) readily available, just costly. If pharmaceuticals could be as easily manufactured in-house as a DNA test can be conducted, would we be having arguments about whether the latest and greatest oh my god costly anti-cancer drug should be being made by and provided by hospitals at a much lower relative cost? (Thinking aloud, actually yes, we would; for example, when countries opt to ignore patents and manufacture AIDS drugs for themselves that's the argument that happens.)
  • Of course a Smith & Wesson might prod the hospital into overlooking silly patent issues.
  • How the fuck can you patent the gene itself, unless you engineered it in a lab? It isn't a drug. It's a gene. It evolved, ferChristsake. It wasn't dreamed up by some biotech employee. It is found naturally in all people and a variant of this gene is linked with a disease. Look, I'm all for translational research, and biomedical advancement, but it's a goddamn gene and how the almighty fuck can humanity lose the argument that the existence of this gene in all humans does not constitute prior art?
  • Sorry for the f-bombs there. I think I may be getting touchier 'bout baby issues as the arrival of our lil' tadpole draws closer...
  • Ah, Mr. F. Frogs V, you have every right to be upset. Why is it corporations feel free to make ungodly profits at the expense of human beings?
  • When we elect legislators and presidents who represent corporate interests, then government represents corporate interests.
  • > How the fuck can you patent the gene itself You can patent all sorts of surprising things. Whether you can defend your patent is another question. Unfortunately, companies use patents as a threat and it's costly to challenge them. Someone needs to take a public interest case against this biotech firm or stage an event where they overtly flaunt the patent (conducting unlicensed tests, for example). Force the company to sue them, and the question of whether a gene can be patented will be discussed explicitly in court.
  • Sounds like a case for Bernockle, DNA Lawyer.
  • I read this and was very happy. Every bit of control we wrest back from the corporations is a step in the right direction.