Comparte esta noticia

• Tweet
• meneame

Otras noticias

• Economía incumple con Unión Gremial el criterio que aplicó para excluir a Anged del Observatorio
• El 'problema valenciano' se cuela en Madrid
• A quién le sube y a quién le baja los impuestos Joan Ribó

VALENCIA. The sentence by the Supreme Court of the United States that forbids patenting human genome material represents a big step for science and scientists have welcomed the news with great satisfaction. To date, the North American company Myriad Genetics owned the rights to industrial property and commercial exploitation of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, whose detection was crucial for measuring the risk of developing ovarian or breast cancer.

This fact hindered other companies from freely using the mentioned genes for diagnosis tests. There is a new scenario now, among other reasons because competitiveness is on the rise, which will result in more affordable tests making them thus accessible for more people. Mètode has talked to some experts on the genome and cancer research to analyse the situation.

 
Jaume Bertranpetit, Full Professor of Biology at Pompeu Fabra University (UPF)
«Patenting what is discovered is completely absurd because it already exists, it has not been invented»

-What direction is biomedical research now taking? 
-Nothing is going to change. The sticking point is that they had already accepted patents of naturally occurring human sequences. The whole world agrees that inventions should be patented, but not discoveries, because they already exist. Besides, genetic diagnosis consists on describing what you are seeing. Up until now, if you wanted to sequence the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene you had to pay money to Myriad Genetics for the diagnosis. That was downright nonsensical.

-This sentence leaves the door open to patenting synthetic DNA (artificial products derivative from the gene). How can it be used and how do you assess this decision?
-Any invention from any material can be patented. Maybe in the near future we will be able to invent things that nature has not invented. This is interesting for those who work on biotechnology and synthetic biology because they would have the possibility of patenting their work.

-The pharmaceutical industry keeps claiming that without the protection of Intellectual Property «it will be more difficult to attract investors for researching cancer because patents guarantee recouping that investment». What is your opinion about that?
-Unless there is a very specific diagnosis technology, patents should only be valid for inventions. A patent where standard technologies are used to describe something that we are seeing and already exists is unconceivable.

-Do you think this sentence sets a precedent regarding other kind of patents, like vaccines or antibiotics?
-No, definitely no, because they are inventions. The most valuable lesson we can extract from this sentence is remembering Craig Venter attempt to patent the whole human sequence. He made it on behalf of the National Institutes of Health, which is a public organism, not to his own profit. So the question remains: was it right? And I say: «Well, he made it just in case somebody did it before him». As we know now that cannot be the case, because it is illegal, everyone is keeping it cool. 
 

Ana Cuenda, Head of Department of Immunology and Oncology at the Spanish National Centre for Biotechnology (Centro Nacional de Biotecnología)
«It would be easier to do research without the obstacle patents represent»

-What direction is biomedical research now taking?
-It means a great advance for scientists because they will have the possibility to research the mentioned genes more freely-some of which are involved in cancer-related diseases- which I expect will result in therapeutic applications for patients.

-What changes did the sentence produce in the field of cancer research?
-In general, removing the obstacles the patents of human genes represent speeds up scientific processes, which will develop further and faster, because this restriction disappears.

-The pharmaceutical industry keeps claiming that without the protection of Intellectual Property «it will be more difficult to attract investors for researching cancer because patents guarantee recouping that investment». What is your opinion about that?
-I think this claim can somehow be true for pharmaceutical companies, but I think it is quite the opposite in the long term. The more knowledge generated about cancer, the more profits they can make, because this way research is not limited to only a few scientists.

-Although we know it is not legal anymore, is patenting the human gene ethical?
-My personal opinion is it is not ethical, it is something that should be accessible for everybody, because everybody gets sick and has the right to be healed. Although it could be understandable that for them it is just business and that they want to obtain a profit.

Full text available at Mètode's website.

Noticias relacionadas

• TRADUCTOR: El genoma humano no es patentable