The Wall Street Journal "Court Rules Biotech Firm can Patent Human Genes" 8/17/2012 p. B3
by Brent Kendall.
Majia here: In 2005, almost 19% of the human genome was patented. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1013_051013_gene_patent.html
The Supreme Court just agreed with Myriad Genetics (corporation) that "isolated DNA is a new chemical matter with important utilities which can only exist as the product of human ingenuity" (a quote by Peter Meldrum CEO of Myriad Genetics).
Please see the ACLU's Take Back My Genes response to the commercialization of the very fabric of our beings: http://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-free-speech/take-back-our-genes-join-fight-against-gene-patenting
Below find an excerpt from my book Governmentalilty, Biopower, and Everyday Life in which I discuss patenting of genes.
I argue critically that patenting life itself illustrates the
commercialization of nearly all aspects of society under neoliberalism.
[excerpted from my book]
Critics express
concerns over the commercial patenting of the human genome. In 2005, The
Wall Street Journal reported at least 18.5% of human genes were covered
by U.S. patents (Westphal, 2005).
Science Magazine concluded many patents were granted improperly and in
“an overly broad manner” consequently limiting research on gene
sequences by those other than the patent holder (Paradise, Andrews,
& Holbrook, 2005, p. 1566). Critics fear commercial patenting will
limit the scope of medical investigation to only those research
trajectories promising significant financial returns.
Currently, utility patents are available for the following biotechnological innovations:
• A process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single or multi-celled organism to:
o Express an exogenous nucleotide sequence
o Inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence
o Express a specific physiological characteristic not normally associated with that organism
• Cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein (e.g. monoclonal antibody)
• A method of using a product produced by the above manipulations. (“What can be,” n.d.)
• A process of genetically altering or otherwise inducing a single or multi-celled organism to:
o Express an exogenous nucleotide sequence
o Inhibit, eliminate, augment, or alter expression of an endogenous nucleotide sequence
o Express a specific physiological characteristic not normally associated with that organism
• Cell fusion procedures yielding a cell line that expresses a specific protein (e.g. monoclonal antibody)
• A method of using a product produced by the above manipulations. (“What can be,” n.d.)
Plant patents can also be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and
asexually reproduces distinct and new varieties of plants. In September
2005, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a previous
ruling that patents could not be granted on DNA strands binding genes
whose functions are unknown (Kintisch, 2005). In a dissent, federal
Judge Rader claimed the decision would harm support for early-stage
research providing “a cognizable benefit for society” (cited in
Kintisch, 2005, p. 1799).
Not surprisingly, the patenting of life forms, whether human, animal, or
plant, DNA or RNA, produces considerable controversy. Are the basic
elements and processes of life subject to capitalization? U.S. courts
have ruled affirmatively.
In 1976, the state of California’s Supreme Court concluded a cancer
patient, Mr. Moore, had no control over a cell line called “MO” that had
been removed from his spleen because products of nature are patentable
once isolated to produce forms not found outside of laboratory
conditions (Council for Responsible Genetics, 2000). The abstraction of
the sequence in the form of “information” renders the process impersonal
and almost “virtual,” and has the odd effect of depoliticizing the
commoditization because of these characterizations.
The market potential of genetic innovations results in huge capital
investments by for-profit corporations (mainly pharmaceutical,
biotechnology, and genomic start-up firms) and by public universities
seeking to subsidize their operations through government grants and
private research funds.
Justification for genetic capitalization comes in all forms.
Pharmaceutical companies will develop drugs for previously untreatable
diseases such as cancer. Biotechnology companies will genetically
engineer bacteria capable of breaking down pollutants (Fialka, 2004).
Economic security, national competitiveness, and health maximization are
represented as contiguous terms in neoliberal formulations of health
marketization....
...Genetic engineering, involving recombinant DNA and cloning, is employed to develop new forms of “biocapital,” as explicated recently by Kaushik Rajan (2006) in his genealogy of postgenomic bioengineering. Recombinant DNA has produced bioengineered agricultural crops such tomatoes, rice, and cotton.
...Genetic engineering, involving recombinant DNA and cloning, is employed to develop new forms of “biocapital,” as explicated recently by Kaushik Rajan (2006) in his genealogy of postgenomic bioengineering. Recombinant DNA has produced bioengineered agricultural crops such tomatoes, rice, and cotton.
Opportunities for bio-capitalization today
govern genetic engineering’s approach to studying human diseases,
susceptibilities, and “traits.” Consequently, pharmaceutical
applications dominate bioengineering agendas pursued by both biotech and
pharmaceutical companies. As explained by Rajan, “upstream” research,
which identifies lead compounds, is primarily pursued by biotech
companies; while “downstream” research, which manufactures and markets
therapeutic molecules, is primarily pursued by established
pharmaceutical companies (p. 21).
Majia here again. In my essay "The Biopolitics and Bioeconomics of Autism" I address the problems stemming from patenting genes:
[excerpted] The search for gene alleles,
SNPs, and mutations implicated in conferring risk for developing the
constellation of symptoms described as autistic mesmerizes the market
and the popular imagination. Many genomic researchers acknowledge the
mediating role of (unknown) environmental “factors,” but are transfixed
by the agentive power of gene alleles in shaping “autistic” outcomes.
The discourse of the gene seduces, promising simultaneous cure and
capitalization.
Autism susceptibility genes are biocapital. Once sequenced in the
laboratory they can be patented. The World Intellectual Property
Organization recognizes patents on at least two autism susceptibility
genes (Application No. PCT/1B2005/002630 and Application No
PCT/1B2005/002319). The U.S. Patent office has patented a method for
screening genetic markers associated with autism (Application No. 95117
filed in 1998).
Patents dictate and restrict research trajectories. Patents on autism
genes can be used to generate revenue streams. Autism is big business
for bioengineering and pharmaceutical companies. Autism circulates in a
growing bio-economy that is viewed as vital to re-establishing national
economic competitiveness.
Although geneticists studying autism formally acknowledge the role of
environmental mediations, it is their ability to target susceptibility
genes (over environmental contributions) that produces commercial
revenue streams.
Marketization of autism seduces because it promises products, magical
devices, for normalizing impaired children, while simultaneously
stimulating economic development of the biotech sector. In effect,
marketization of autism promises to reduce the economic burden of autism
for the state as market forces are positioned as the agents for
redressing autistic deficits. Furthermore, within neo-mercantile logics,
the growths of industries that specialize in biocapital enhance
national economic competitiveness.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.