Panel asks who owns your genes?
Hint: it isn't necessarily you

During a panel discussion on “Who Owns your Genes: How Gene Patents are Trampling Individual Rights,” at the recent ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, law professor and popular author Lori Andrews told the audience about her inhaler.

“I have asthma. I am one of three out of 10 people in the United States who benefit from this inhaler. The company who makes this inhaler has a patent on the test for the gene that determines whether or not this inhaler is effective. They have an exclusive right for 20 years to help people suffering with asthma to find out whether or not this inhaler is right for them. But they're not going to do that. They’re going to hold onto their patent and do nothing so physicians will continue to prescribe this inhaler to their patients on a let's-see-if-it works basis. And, they have the legal right to do that," said Andrews.

Andrews is a professor at the Chicago-Kent School of Law and director of the Institute for Science, Law and Technology at Illinois Institute of Technology. In addition to writing popular fiction and scientific books and articles, she is the co-author of two new books on the implications of genetic engineering.

Author, film producer, film director and medical doctor Michael Crichton was also on the panel. He told the audience that one-fifth of the human genome is covered by patents. He said as a well-known author (Jurassic Park), he is a great believer in the protection of intellectual property.

But he said that patenting parts of the human body creates issues that need to be considered on an intellectual, practical and emotional level. “We live in a society with numbers of options, but only one of those options is in the best interests of society,” he said.

“A test for women who have a specific breast cancer gene can be done for $30 to $100. Patients and their insurance companies are paying at least $3,000 for this test because the patent holder is able to keep the cost up and block any innovations involving that particular gene. Women without insurance or means to pay for the test may not learn until their cancer is far advanced that they have this gene,” Crichton said. “How is society served?”

Michelle Goodwin, professor of law at DePaul University, directs DePaul's Health Law Institute. She pointed out that all people want to benefit from new discoveries and technologies. She discussed a case in which a patient's cells were used without his permission and when he sued to recoup some of the income from sales of the product made with his cells, but without his knowledge, he was denied.

Goodwin pointed out the similarities to slavery when people did not own their bodies.

Intellectual property lawyer Lester Savit said there are four misconceptions about gene technology:
1. Gene patents cover features of the natural world.
2. Gene patents reward lazy scientists.
3. Gene patents block innovation
4. Congress should get involved and decide what is and what is not patentable.

Discussion with the audience followed with many believing that Congress needs to act to protect the public since in most cases tax dollars were involved in the research. Other members of the audience believed that free market conditions should prevail and that the inventor has the right to the benefits of his or her discovery.

More information is available from Susan Fogal, program moderator, who is co-chair of the ABA Health Rights and Bioethics Committee, at sbfogel@pacbell.net.

Back to top

Back to home