scientaestubique ([info]scientaestubiqu) wrote,
@ 2002-10-22 16:26:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
What's the market value for your life?
also posted to [info]wildwomen

U.S. patent stops breast cancer testing

From the article:

A key breast cancer test can no longer be done in B.C. [British Columbia] because an American company has the gene patent.

Utah-based Myriad Genetics Inc. has put a patent on two genes that can signal whether a woman may develop hereditary breast cancer.

Dr. Simon Sutcliffe, who runs the B.C. Cancer Agency, said 200 of the tests are now being routed annually to Ontario, which is ignoring the patent.

The agency used to do its own tests until the B.C. government recently ordered it to stop after legal threats by Myriad.

Myriad now wants $3,500 US for the blood test, three times what it used to cost the province.

And there's nothing B.C. cancer patients can do, other than paying for the test out-of-pocket.

"The price, then, can really be held to any blackmail you wish," said Sutcliffe yesterday. "Whatever they set the price at. It could be a factor of 10 or a factor of 50."

Myriad's gene patent gives it control over all research using those genes.

Barbara Kaminsky, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society in B.C., is concerned that private companies can own genes.

"What we're seeing now is the tip of the iceberg," she said.

"If this one is not dealt with, we can only, unfortunately, anticipate more to come."

Kaminsky is critical of the B.C. government for

suspending the tests here while other provinces are carrying on.

"We're extremely disappointed," she said. "It's intolerable from the point of view of cancer patients."

She said women may have had their breasts removed needlessly because these tests were not available.

"Now we have the tests, and to deny women access based on cost is just so inappropriate," she said.

About 10 per cent of cancer patients have a hereditary form of the disease.

Myriad also holds monopoly gene patents for ovarian, colon and prostate cancers, among the 99 it currently holds.

Nearly 10,000 patents relating to the human body have been filed worldwide.

Health Services Minister Colin Hansen said the genetic tests were stopped here on legal advice.

"There is maybe merit in patenting the applications of how we use gene sequencing, but to actually patent the sequence is something I certainly have great difficulty with," he said.

Paying Myriad for the screenings is not going to happen, said Hansen.

"We certainly want to make as broad a range of services available to the public. But we also have to make sure we can afford it," he said.

In 1998, breast cancer survivor Susan Harris of Vancouver tested negative before the genes were patented.

"It's an incredibly important test, because it's knowledge I can share with my family," said the 54-year-old researcher.

She called the Myriad patent "reprehensible."

"It's part of a person's body, their being. It's not a machine. This precedent is very, very unsettling."


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]myrch
2002-10-22 06:19 am UTC (link)
"We're extremely disappointed," [Kaminsky] said. "It's intolerable from the point of view of cancer patients."

She said women may have had their breasts removed needlessly because these tests were not available.


Whaa?... there are several cancer tests that can be used with a breast biopsy. Maybe the article is not specifying the kind of cancer these patients have, but that line makes no sense to me. All of those tests cost a lot of money, by the way. And most (if not all, under Canada's socialized medicine scheme) are covered by insurance. The poor woman is NOT paying $3500 or whatever for the test.

I think the situation is sad, but this article does a piss poor job of informing its readers about the OTHER side of this issue -- namely the one centered around intellectual property. I'm sure the people who sequenced this particular gene (probably a transcription factor) would love to see good things come of their work, but I think they also are interested in reaping rewards from their work, especially considering the amount of work involved in identifying a gene, sequencing it, and determining its function. That's several years' work right there. Should someone else be able to turn around and make money off your discovery? Because no matter who is USING the knowledge of that gene, someone will be making money, whether that "someone" is an insurance company, a hospital, or a state agency.

Most people do not understand what it means to patent a gene. This article does its readers a disservice by not explaining, thus propogating the misconception that a patented gene somehow belongs to a company or individual.

Do I seem like I'm in a bad mood today? :D

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]scientaestubiqu
2002-10-22 03:39 pm UTC (link)
patent a test, or a medicine or a cure... but I don't think anyone should have the right to patent a gene, unless they created it...

*hehe* yes, you do...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]myrch
2002-10-22 03:47 pm UTC (link)
What's wrong with patenting a gene sequence?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]scientaestubiqu
2002-10-22 08:00 pm UTC (link)
nothing, if you created it...

patent - A grant made by a government that confers upon the creator of an invention the sole right to make, use, and sell that invention for a set period of time.

if I found a rock, I shouldn't be able to patent it...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]myrch
2002-10-22 09:34 pm UTC (link)
Maybe things work differently over there (I'm quite positive they don't), but in the U.S. we have well over a hundred years of intellectual property law that says creations can be either concrete or conceptual.

A scientist who patents a gene didn't invent the gene of course, but is owed credit for having discovered its sequence. As a result, in the United States and most everywhere else, anyone who attempts to use that sequence to make money owes the sequence's original discover money. If the intent is not to make money, a person or corporation or government entity is free to do as it likes with that information.

The alternative is obscenely unfair to the person who does the sequencing work and gene product studies.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]scientaestubiqu
2002-10-23 01:37 am UTC (link)
the problem with knowledge patents is that they can accumulate...

if I need to know A to create B, and A+B to create C etc, it can become ridiculous...

if the cost of S is so much as to be useless for it's purpose, that's an issue...

a lot of IP laws suck, the system is Mickey Mouse...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]myrch
2002-10-23 05:44 am UTC (link)
Like I said, you don't need to pay the creator of knowledge if you're just doing research. If someone is on their way to creating "S," no law has been broken. And quite honestly, if "S" works by itself or is useful by itself without relying on previous steps, no royalties probably need be paid to the creators of the previous steps in your example.

The system is, just like people, flawed. But it works.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]scientaestubiqu
2002-10-23 03:17 pm UTC (link)
if you are doing research until you create S, but then you want to make money from S, why wouldn't royalities be paid?

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…