Letter: Gene patenting would benefit medical companies, not patients
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It should be understood that the main issue in gene patenting (Letters, 31 July) is not whether patent protection should be offered for the development of an inventive diagnostic kit or of a new vehicle for a genetic therapy. These would be inventions in themselves, thus patentable anyway, and we endorse fully a directive which clarifies the whole situation and protects intellectual property rights when appropriate.
Our objection is to the fact that one article in the directive states:
an element isolated from the human body or otherwise produced by means of a technical process including the structure or partial structure of a gene may constitute a patentable invention, even if the structure of that element is identical to that of a natural element.
Therefore, as it stands, the directive does mean that naturally occurring gene sequences are patentable because, in order to do anything with a gene or gene sequence, it has to be isolated from the body.
Although an industrial application has to be stated, this can be something as simple as looking for faults in the gene. This means that any genetic test, using any technique, would be subject to the payment of royalties and licence fees. A biomedical company would not have to develop an inventive kit or develop a therapy to earn money. Indeed, rather than encourage the development of these tests and therapies, it would create a monopoly in which only the patent holder would gain, without the necessity to do anything inventive. The actual gene itself would probably never be used in therapy without some vector to deliver it to the body. Therefore, any therapy derived from the gene would be subject to a double patent.
It is the wording of this one article in the directive that is so vital. There is no guarantee that this directive, as it is worded, will help patients with genetic disorders. However, it will cost the NHS dearly, probably restrict access to genetic tests and create a field day for biomedical companies and lawyers.
ROBERTA TWEEDY
Director, The Neurofibromatosis Association
Kingston upon Thames, Surrey
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments