Who do our genes belong to?

September 7, 2010, Australian National University

Investors in pharmaceutical, medical and biotechnological industries should not be able to patent genes that are identical to naturally occurring sequences, according to an Australian National University biotechnology patent expert.

Dr Luigi Palombi, who appeared on the ABC’s Four Corners program discussing gene patents, argues that a system which recognises a right (GSR) would make it easier for scientists to carry out their research that would, ultimately, benefit society.

“The current does not encourage innovation in Australian biotechnology,” said Dr Palombi, who is the project director of the Genetic Sequence Right Project at the Centre for Governance of Knowledge and Development at ANU.

“Scientists and researchers should not be limited in their endeavours to innovate and overcome the causes of human disease and illness.

“Clearly, there is logic in the argument that patents help to encourage innovation, but the patent system has inherent limitations, one of which is that the subject of the patent must be an ‘invention’. The use of genetic sequences which are identical to naturally occurring sequences should not be controlled or come under the ownership of any one organisation or person.”

Dr Palombi said the GSR holder would be recognised as being the first to enable the publication of new genetic materials and their function and, therefore, entitled to receive GSR revenue for their disclosure.

“Irrespective of whether a genetic sequence is an invention or not, the elucidation of a genetic sequence and the identification of its function is important work that should be encouraged,” Dr Palombi said.

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Peers' genes may help friends stay in school, new study finds

January 18, 2018
While there's scientific evidence to suggest that your genes have something to do with how far you'll go in school, new research by a team from Stanford and elsewhere says the DNA of your classmates also plays a role.

Two new breast cancer genes emerge from Lynch syndrome gene study

January 18, 2018
Researchers at Columbia University Irving Medical Center and NewYork-Presbyterian have identified two new breast cancer genes. Having one of the genes—MSH6 and PMS2—approximately doubles a woman's risk of developing breast ...

A centuries-old math equation used to solve a modern-day genetics challenge

January 18, 2018
Researchers developed a new mathematical tool to validate and improve methods used by medical professionals to interpret results from clinical genetic tests. The work was published this month in Genetics in Medicine.

Can mice really mirror humans when it comes to cancer?

January 18, 2018
A new Michigan State University study is helping to answer a pressing question among scientists of just how close mice are to people when it comes to researching cancer.

Group recreates DNA of man who died in 1827 despite having no body to work with

January 16, 2018
An international team of researchers led by a group with deCODE Genetics, a biopharmaceutical company in Iceland, has partly recreated the DNA of a man who died in 1827, despite having no body to take tissue samples from. ...

Epigenetics study helps focus search for autism risk factors

January 16, 2018
Scientists have long tried to pin down the causes of autism spectrum disorder. Recent studies have expanded the search for genetic links from identifying genes toward epigenetics, the study of factors that control gene expression ...

2 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BloodSpill
not rated yet Sep 07, 2010
Here's hoping Australia can be the first(?)/next to recognise this idea in law.
gunslingor1
not rated yet Sep 07, 2010
Genetic code should not be patentable at all.. no life form of should be owned by man.

Crops for example... Monsanto owns the patents on a number of genetically modified crops, most of which were bread from natural selection. What happens when a single crop plant randomly takes on the exact trates on Monsanto's crop? Your breaking the law and they will own your farm. not to mention that there patented genes are not contained, and spread into farms that do not want the modification... your still breaking the law.

What happens when a company developes a new gene that makes cancer impossible, then 10 years later a human is born with that gene randomly... does the company now own the person? What if I had that gene randomly when I was born 30 years ago, and they develop and patent it wwhen I am 18... Do I now have the right to sue the company for everything they have? I did invent it first, which is easily proven.

Plus, there are serious ethical violation not even mentioned.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.