Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: Bioethics; Myriad Genetics loses, humanity wins.

  1. #1
    SFGOON
    Guest SFGOON's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default Bioethics; Myriad Genetics loses, humanity wins.

    If I was the one who discovered the chemical formulae for water, I could have patented it and made you all pay me a royalty every time you drank. Right?

    No? What do you mean? I did all the work! I made this discovery, parasite!

    Myriad genetics has held patents on human genes which cause breast cancer. These genes would have been incredibly useful for the development of therapies. Instead, Myriad Genetics just sat on them for a decade and stymied any research into these gene sequences.

    This has arguably caused several preventable deaths.

    Normally, I think the ACLU are a bunch of whiny white boys who couldn't get real lawyer jobs. But, they were representing the plantiffs (humanity) in this case, and they pulled it off.

    This sort of abuse and stonewalling is exactly the reason why the government, (or wealthy benefactors vis a vis Rockefeller) should subsidize science and especially medical research. The financial incentive needs to be diminished. Also, patent law needs serious reform with regard to medicine.

    Edit: Here's a short wired.com article on the subject, for those of you who don't trust my interpretation. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...-gene-patents/

  2. #2
    how do robot Supporting Member Arhetton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,057


    Yes | No

    Default

    We had a similar case in Australia, identically over treatment for breast cancer.

    Whats unclear in the article, as it is poorly written, is whether or not the patent applies exclusively to the genes, or to the testing procedures.

    As I understand in these disputes, the companies actually patent the genes to enforce the exclusivity of the testing procedures.

    I mean it harps on about how the patent covers the genes, then this sentence

    Quote Originally Posted by Wired
    Patents for exclusive genetic testing have also been issued for a host of genes, including those related to cystic fibrosis, heart arrhythmias and hemochromatosis.
    In the Australian case, I am actually a shareholder in the company in question, and I have three sisters and we discussed the case.

    If a company invests tens of millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars in firstly, discovering what genes cause breast cancer, then developing a new treatment or procedure for screening for breast cancer, they have a right to recover their investment.

    Understandably they move in and try to control competitors from basically bankrupting them. Law of the jungle etc etc. And you are correct in that the patent process needs review, and that companies should not be able to own bits of DNA that exist in the general population.

    However complaints like these that the companies involved stymie research and profiteer off human suffering ignore the fact that this research would not go on at all if there was no profit in the activity.

    Personally I am glad that private companies are involved in health and genetics. There is a lot of innovation from that sphere.

    In the case of Myriad, I personally do not like this company very much. The man who 'discovered' BRCA1 stole the idea for the research off a contemporary scientist, Mary Claire King, who deserved the recognition and was months off the same discovery.



    You can learn more about this particular gene patent in question in the following documentary episode:

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/dna/episode4/index.html


    --------

    Personalities and politics aside, say it takes $100 million to discover a new treatment. Say the incidence of the disease is low (small market), so it costs $3000 per screening. Roughly 30,000 individuals need to move through the screening before the company breaks even, let alone profits.

    Take the investment over time (several years to discover the treatment, more to recover initial investment, more to profit), and it may have made more sense for the company to just fuck the research off, put the money in the bank and let it compound for the ten years or so involved. So there is opportunity cost for the investment as well.

    "But don't you like helping people/You're an evil bastard/you don't care about breast cancer" etc etc.

    I can tell you for a fact that most women that I know have spent more than $3000 on shoes and handbags in the last 5 years, and yet they are outraged that it costs $3000 to be genetically (permanently) screened for hereditary breast cancer?

    I spent 1/2 of that at the dentist last year. Most people as far as I know could whack that on a credit card and pay it off over two years.

    Most of the women the test applies to is for hereditary cancer, so they only need test if there is a history in the family of the disease. As you will see if you watch the documentary.

    I think people get emotional over this stuff because it is their health, and they go crazy when they 'can't afford it'.

    If there was a $3000 genetic test which pretty much dead set told you whether or not you would get prostate cancer, without having a doctor shove his hand up your ass, do you think men would complain about taking it?

  3. #3
    Registered Member staff EuropIan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,495


    Yes | No

    Default

    So if a person has those genes they have to pay royalties?

    That doesn't make any sense.
    You are Ian's plaything, responding to his touch with shrieks of orgasmic delight. No woman in the history of the world is having better sex than sex you are having with Ian... in my head.

  4. #4
    Science Fucker Photobucket WarPhalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    22,801


    Yes | No

    Default

    I don't see how you can patent discoveries. You can only patent inventions or ideas. Say I discovered a new planet. I can't patent it. It's not intellectual property. It's already there.

    Testing procedures, yes, they are patentable. But saying "you can't study gene #203582 because I discovered it and therefore it's mine" is fucking stupid.

  5. #5
    SFGOON
    Guest SFGOON's Avatar


    Yes | No

    Default

    What do you think - say - Genetech, charges for a course of Avastin?

    It's on the order of $100,000. Holy fucking shit! Talk about a captive market, huh? You shouldn't have to sell your house to afford medicine. But, that's what Genentech is asking of people. This is also why insurance companies were so eager to drop people once they came down with cancer.

    Avastin doesn't have a mechanism of action that's tightly specific to any one form of cancer - rather it prevents the formation of new blood vessels which in turn slows down tumor growth.

    Sales topped 2.7 billion in 2008. I think they might have recovered their R&D inputs by now.

    Strictly speaking, I don't have a problem with the patenting of drugs. It's the patenting of products of nature, such as BRCA 1&2 which stymie innovation both for the industry as well as the patent holder.

    If the company in question wanted to protect it's ability to screen for breast cancer, they could have just as easily patented the restriction enzymes without monopolizing the entire gene. Because such an enzyme would not be a product of nature, it was patentable.

    As is, their actions stymied innovation by preventing others from discovering useful information about BCRA.

  6. #6
    Registered Member HappyOldGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    9,731


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poop Loops
    I don't see how you can patent discoveries. You can only patent inventions or ideas. Say I discovered a new planet. I can't patent it. It's not intellectual property. It's already there.

    Testing procedures, yes, they are patentable. But saying "you can't study gene #203582 because I discovered it and therefore it's mine" is fucking stupid.
    But what if I patent the process of using gene #203582 using all of the common laboratory methods to identifya specific gene. There aren't that many.
    I'm here a week now... waiting for a mission... getting softer. Every minute I sit in front of this computer, I get weaker, and every minute Charlie squats in the gym, he gets stronger


  7. #7
    Science Fucker Photobucket WarPhalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    22,801


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HappyOldGuy
    But what if I patent the process of using gene #203582 using all of the common laboratory methods to identifya specific gene. There aren't that many.
    I have no idea what you just said. Patent the process of using the gene? Or patent the process of identifying the gene? I don't see how identifying a specific gene would have a different process than identifying a gene in general. I can see patenting a process of identifying genes, just like you can patent processes to identify heart disease or some such, but I guess I'd have to know more about this gene and how to identify it to have a better opinion on the matter.

  8. #8
    Distilled Excellence danno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,406


    Yes | No

    Default

    this would never, ever happen in danno's socialist utopia.

  9. #9
    Science Fucker Photobucket WarPhalange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    22,801


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danno
    this would never, ever happen in danno's socialist utopia.
    Medical research?

  10. #10
    how do robot Supporting Member Arhetton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,057


    Yes | No

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfgoon
    Strictly speaking, I don't have a problem with the patenting of drugs. It's the patenting of products of nature, such as BRCA 1&2 which stymie innovation both for the industry as well as the patent holder.

    If the company in question wanted to protect it's ability to screen for breast cancer, they could have just as easily patented the restriction enzymes without monopolizing the entire gene. Because such an enzyme would not be a product of nature, it was patentable.

    As is, their actions stymied innovation by preventing others from discovering useful information about BCRA.
    I agree with this.

    Quote Originally Posted by sfgoon
    What do you think - say - Genetech, charges for a course of Avastin?

    It's on the order of $100,000. Holy fucking shit! Talk about a captive market, huh? You shouldn't have to sell your house to afford medicine. But, that's what Genentech is asking of people. This is also why insurance companies were so eager to drop people once they came down with cancer.

    Avastin doesn't have a mechanism of action that's tightly specific to any one form of cancer - rather it prevents the formation of new blood vessels which in turn slows down tumor growth.

    Sales topped 2.7 billion in 2008. I think they might have recovered their R&D inputs by now.
    I don't know anything about this product.

    I don't know how much it cost to develop, how profitable they expect the product to be (ROI), how large the target market is and indeed, what the actual price is.
    (math tells me that 2.7 billion * 100,000 = 270 trillion... many times the worlds GDP).

    All I know is BYAH evil corporate america BYAH [email protected]!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
◮ Top