@article{Examination:459,
      recid = {459},
      author = {Westphal, Edward},
      title = {An Examination of the Controversy Concerning the Granting  of Patents on Human Genes and Gene Fragments},
      address = {2002-12},
      abstract = {A revolution in genetics has been occurring since Watson  and Crick discovered the structure of the double helical  DNA molecule.  The explosion of knowledge about the human  genome and the development of technology to clone human  genes have raised issues concerning whether knowledge about  genes can be owned and, thus, whether genes or information  about them can be patented.  The main issues in the human  genome controversy concern how much of the genome is  subject to patent control and how this control will affect  future research and the development of new products. 
In  order to defeat patent law in the service of profit,  biotech corporations have patented singular genes and gene  fragments while acknowledging that DNA itself cannot be  patented.  Proponents of patent protection believe that  patents are the “engine” that drives great discoveries.   The defenders argue that it was costly for researchers to  develop the data, and now they are merely recouping their  initial investment.  The incentive to perform even the most  basic research in genetics would not exist if the patent  system were not available to provide the protection and  nurturing that new inventions require. 
	On July 29, 2001,  CBS television network broadcast on Sixty Minutes an  examination the controversy.  A biotech firm was attempting  to patent naturally occurring genes.  When 60 Minutes sent  a letter to the firm to clarify the issue, the firm claimed  that ”…the patent has not resulted in any financial gain…”  for the non-profit organization. The letter further stated  that two subjects who contributed the genetic material were  not considered as co-owners of the material because “…they  did not contribute intellectually to the discovery…” of the  genetic mutation. 
	Laurie Anderson, a patent attorney and  advisor to Congress, stated that doctors are searching  world-wide and that they view their patients as treasure  troves whose blood can be used to find lucrative genes.   She contended that patents should not be applied to the  products of nature because these products are not  inventions.  The United Stated Constitution established the  patent system to reward and protect inventors.  
Until  recently, the idea of scientific research products and  results being viewed as private property, as opposed to  openly shared public knowledge, would have appeared absurd.   After Jonas Salk discovered the polio vaccine, he was  asked why he did not attempt to patent it.  In reply, he  said, “Can you patent the sun?”  Ironically, today the Salk  Institute holds hundreds of patents on the products of  scientific investigations.  Science has changed from one of  altruism to one of capitalism.  Greed is now a cultural  value in the health care system, and that the system needs  to return to that altruistic approach.
	A return to an  altruistic approach in genetic research, however, appears  to be unlikely in an age in which a gene responsible for  Epogen, a drug used in kidney treatment is worth more than  a billion dollars in annual revenue for that holder of the  patent and the manufacturer.  Even in less lucrative  fields, the “gold rush” is on. 
	Scientists had been doing  pure research long before there were such lucrative  economic incentives.  Allowing patents on genes has changed  medicine forever and completely altered scientific thought.   Usually in scientific endeavors, researchers share  scientific knowledge so that many independent and competent  people may be working on a cure for a specific disease.   This is not now the case with the existence of overreaching  gene patents, where the individual who identifies the gene  controls subsequent research and marketing of that  knowledge.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is  violating its own guidelines and previous court decisions  by granting patents to individuals and companies seeking to  patent gene and partial gene sequences.  Genes are physical  phenomena that the courts have defined as subject matter  that is not patentable.  The only exception, which is  patentable, is a novel gene sequence, including the  processes and technology utilized in it’s creation, where a  human being actually intervenes to create or develop the  new sequence or process.  That, however, is not what a  number of biotech firms are attempting to patent.  The  subject matter that they wish to monopolize is the mapping  and descriptions of gene and partial gene sequences, which  occur in nature.   The most obvious solution is for the  Patent Office to reject biotech firms patent applications  on such subject matter, and, as an added safeguard, for  active, involved citizens to petition their legislative  representatives to pass laws preventing biotech firms from  patenting naturally-occurring genes and partial gene  sequences.  This may then reverse the recent trend toward  scientific secrecy and restore the free flow of scientific  knowledge between laboratories doing genetic research.},
      url = {http://knowledge.uchicago.edu/record/459},
}