How Many Companies Hold Patents to Your Genes?

In the brave new world of biotechnology you may be surprised to learn that genes can be patented. It has been one of my concerns for the last several years after I learned about it several years ago, and in today's Op-Ed section of the New York Times, well-known author Michael Crichton writes about it in "Patenting Life."

He maintains this practice is one big mistake:

This bizarre situation has come to pass because of a mistake by an underfinanced and understaffed government agency. The United States Patent Office misinterpreted previous Supreme Court rulings and some years ago began--to the surprise of everyone, including scientists decoding the genome--to issue patents on genes.
Humans share mostly the same genes. The same genes are found in other animals as well. Our genetic makeup represents the common heritage of all life on earth. You can't patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn't be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.

The ramifications are far-reaching in terms of treatments. Crichton gives an example of how patenting genes and requiring royalties has prevented or significantly boosted the costs associated with tests or treatments having to do with the genes.

Those defending this practice argue that the patent licenses are inexpensive and easy to procure which Crichton argues is simply not the case. He reports that "[t]he owner of the genome for Hepatitis C is paid millions by researchers to study this disease. I am sure others argue that this is good business and will only result in more discoveries.

Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat, and Dave Weldon, a Florida Republican, are sponsoring the genomic Research and Accessibility Act to ban gene patenting for genes that naturally occur. I am hoping that we hear more about this bill in the near future.