Protecting Invented Genes

The ability to patent genes is an argument that has been raging for decades, with various companies and governments making controversial decisions or blocking the idea altogether.  But what actually is the argument all about?

Firstly we need to know what a gene patent is and how you can get one. Well it is a licence granted by the government (or more commonly the European Patent Office or United States Patent & Trademarking Office) to an inventor, granting them sole use of an invention or process they have discovered, they can then if they choose to, sell or hire out their patent. However there is a time restriction and generally a patent is valid for twenty years, at which point anyone can use the invention/process without restrictions. There are very specific criteria which can be broken down to some fundamental requirements to get a patent: Is it Novel? (Has not been previously discovered), is it Innovative? (Not an obvious discovery) and is it Useful? (Has to aid human activity).

From these criteria it is arguable, and indeed several companies fighting gene patents use the argument, that a gene patent would be neither novel nor innovative, so why and how can we classify a gene as a patentable idea?

A pro argument for gene patenting is that it stimulates genetic research and would inject some much needed funding into the industry. This is because no company wants to invest millions of pounds into a discovery that anyone can then go onto use. Furthermore a patent, whilst giving full commercial control to an inventor (whether it be an individual or company), forces the patent holder to actually use their invention, they cannot simply take out a patent for the sake of stopping other people researching it. These two points combined would stimulate a huge ‘safe’ investment in the field of molecular biology and genetics, so surely that is a good enough reason? Well if we look at the flipside of the argument we can see there are valid points for why it might not be such a good idea to let it happen. Firstly whilst it doesn’t prevent research, it does very much discourage it, for example if a research institute, like a University, wanted to use a patented gene in what could be deemed a commercial way then they would have to pay a licensing fee to the patent holder. As well as this it could lead to a monopoly over the genetic research market. Companies need to pay to get a patent and hire a patent attorney to protect it. Small companies can very rarely afford the upkeep to protect their idea so larger companies will scope out patents they would like and can purchase them, normally for nominal fees compared to the research costs.

An overview of the situation shows that the pro argument is winning with patents being granted to companies, and a lot of appeals to have patents reinstated have been allowed. However the points here are a small fraction of the greater picture and many other factors, such as religious views and international politics, come into play. The better question is not should we let companies patent genes but more is it right and will it benefit everyone?