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?
