Scientists protest plan to loosen patent protection on genetic research

Oct 11, 2009 By John Schmid

University of Wisconsin-Madison officials are lashing out at new recommendations from an influential federal panel that could dramatically weaken patent protection for the university's genetic research.

Among other things, the panel recommended essentially exempting genetic tests for cancer and other diseases from patent protection -- meaning that anyone could use genetic diagnostic research from UW-Madison or any university without obtaining licenses.

"They are making reckless policy recommendations," said Andrew Cohn, who spearheads government lobbying efforts on behalf of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, UW-Madison's patent-management arm. "This is an incredible precedent, a bad precedent."

The 300-page study was drafted by an advisory committee to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. It focused specifically on genetic tests that are often associated with diagnostic work on cancer, heart and neurological conditions.

The committee, which voted Thursday to accept the study's recommendations, argued that patent ownership of genetic science creates single commercial providers of such genetic tests. Physicians then are forced to send blood and tissue samples to specific providers for analysis. That creates a patchwork of different testing labs, some without agreements from Medicare or Medicaid to pay for the work.

"As we did the report, we had one major constituency in mind, and that was patients," said James Evans, a medical professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who chaired the subcommittee on gene patents and licensing practices for the committee.

Evans said the study asked, "How can the system be narrowly adjusted so we can enhance patient access to these new technologies?"

The report now will be edited before the committee releases it to the public. It then goes to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, encouraging her to support legislation that would change patent law accordingly.

"Obviously, I hope the secretary will act on our recommendations," Evans said.

The Biotechnology Industry Organization, the nation's biggest biosciences trade group, also protested the committee's report.

"Enacting these recommendations would risk thousands of jobs across the country by stifling university-industry partnerships and undermine the country's global leadership in biotech innovation," BIO president Jim Greenwood said in a statement. "We must strongly disagree with its recommendations."

Both WARF and the biotech organization had representatives testify at a hearing of the committee Thursday.

The report includes a second recommendation that triggered a rebuke from WARF.

It encourages Sebelius to explore whether her department has the authority to compel universities and companies that use federal funding for their technology research to license their inventions freely to as many users as possible.

The idea, Evans said, is to limit the use of exclusive license arrangements that keep medical innovations in the hands of a few.

Cohn at WARF called the recommendation a "cookie cutter" approach that undermines the letter and spirit of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities and small businesses to control the licensing and commercial use of their inventions even if those inventions resulted from federal funding.

"The recommendations have the potential to gut the Bayh-Dole act," Cohn said.

Policy makers in Madison have no doubt that Bayh-Dole plays a significant economic role. Before it was enacted, only about 25 universities engaged in technology transfer, and university-generated patents gathered dust in federal government vaults without being used, Cohn said. After the law passed in 1980, that number is above 300, Cohn said.

The report inflames the debate between adherents of the patent system and those who argue that the 20-year monopoly afforded by a patent can limit the use of medical breakthroughs.

Both WARF and the biotech group contend the report fails to substantiate that patent protection limits the use of and research. Patent attorney Eugene Quinn, author of the IPWatchdog.com Web site, criticized the "shocking and surprisingly unfounded conclusion" that patents do not serve as incentives for genetics research.

"We knew from the outset, when we started these deliberations, that there would be dissenting opinions," the committee's Evans said.

Efforts to weaken patent protection raise alarms for those who argue that the patent system encourages research and technology. But in the field of genetics, patents have triggered emotional debates for several years, often on ethical grounds.

The report, which took five years to produce, came from a 16-member committee that Evans said included academics, genetic researchers, biotechnology industry representatives, patient advocates and a law professor.

The recommendations come at a time when obtaining a patent has never been more difficult.

In a series of stories in August, the Journal Sentinel documented that U.S. and Trademark Office has been unable to keep pace with the torrent and complexity of applications it receives.

As it has struggled with a growing backlog that reaches 1.2 million applications, the agency in recent years added hurdles, delays and rejections that have handicapped start-up businesses and entrepreneurs and impeded the nation's economic competitiveness.
___

(c) 2009, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
Visit JSOnline, the Journal Sentinel's World Wide Web site, at www.jsonline.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Explore further: The origin of the language of life

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

U.S. rejects three stem cell patents

Apr 04, 2007

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued a preliminary rejection of three stem cell patents held by the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

High tech needs patent reform

Apr 07, 2009

It isn't often that you see heavyweights in the tech world duking it out in a high-stakes match, with Congress as the referee. It's happening today over proposed reforms in patent law, which pits the software and information ...

Recommended for you

The origin of the language of life

Dec 19, 2014

The genetic code is the universal language of life. It describes how information is encoded in the genetic material and is the same for all organisms from simple bacteria to animals to humans. However, the ...

Quest to unravel mysteries of our gene network

Dec 18, 2014

There are roughly 27,000 genes in the human body, all but a relative few of them connected through an intricate and complex network that plays a dominant role in shaping our physiological structure and functions.

EU court clears stem cell patenting

Dec 18, 2014

A human egg used to produce stem cells but unable to develop into a viable embryo can be patented, the European Court of Justice ruled on Thursday.

User comments : 4

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mechengineer
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 11, 2009
Loosening the patent protection is the best thing to do. Most Universities spend too much time and money registering and protecting their patents. From what I understand the net benefit of these patents, for universities, is negative. I do believe that they essentially lose money in the upkeep of patents.

These state funded schools have a duty to the tax payers, which is to release all research findings. That is to say, to release them into the public domain.

As for the final paragraph, that sounds like rubbish from a lobbying firm. No one lost business because they didnt have patents. Name one company that folded because it didnt patent everything it had.
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Oct 12, 2009
I agree we should loosen all patents on genetic research... it is not fair in a sense that I own my genetic code but I am not allowed to know what it contains because of research patents.

But I agree we must put in place a strict guidleine as to what genetic patents need to be maintained for the sake of returning profit for research.

It is one thing to patent an invention or an idea that cannot or should not be reproduced but these patents are for genes that people have had since birth that they will give to their offspring and have been in their family since before the invention of the microscope. This is like saying Columbus discovered America - and all those indians showed up the next day. Give me a break, this information is not the property of the University it is the right for each person to know what their genetic material holds. Or maybe we will leave it to the Universities to tell us if we are likely to develop a disease when a research prof gets around to it.
JeffF
4.5 / 5 (2) Oct 12, 2009
Hmm... "Scientists protest plan..."

In the article I count one scientists who helped write the plan in support of it, one lobbiest opposed, one industry group opposed, and one patent attorney opposed.

Maybe a better title would be "Non-Scientists protest..."?
Bob_B
not rated yet Oct 12, 2009
Profit while being paid by the tax payers (mechengineer above) is wrong. In essence they act as "death panels" by confounding and hiding information from others. I can't provided an instance, but, I'd bet there are examples of people dying while patent holders hug their prize. I wonder if these researchers will need malpractice insurance when the real horror stories of their deceit and improprieties become well known. I'm sure good defense lawyers will win cases against some of these people holding patents.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.