Mae DesTroismaisons
Controversies in Modern Genomics
September 26, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
On June 13, 2013, The United States Supreme Court ruled that companies may not hold patents on human genes, deciding that our genes are ours, and do not belong to companies (Park). The verdict has ended Myriad Genetics’ monopoly in the field of molecular diagnostics, allowing other laboratories to offer genetic tests for a variety of conditions including breast cancer, which in turn has made the testing much more available and affordable for patients (Pollack). Though this is certainly a victory for people who oppose gene patenting, the battle is not won yet. Exactly one month earlier, it was decided that Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seeds are valid and that any farmer growing crops that contain Monsanto’s gene for glyphosphate (an herbicide) resistance must pay royalties to the company even if the seeds were not purchased from them (Marshall and Malakoff). My question is: why is it legal for large corporations, or anyone for that matter, to hold patents only on certain types of life? My stance is that no one should be allowed to patent any gene, be it human, plant, or other.
People versus Plants
The main difference between patents on human genes such as BRCA 1/2 and plant genes is that the human genes in question have occurred naturally, whereas the plants’ genes have been bioengineered. That is, the DNA sequences in Monsanto’s seeds are in a form that did not exist previously (Goh). But this does not necessarily mean that the plant’s genes for pesticide and herbicide resistance couldn’t have developed in nature; they just hadn’t. Because I believe that evolutionary traits should not be owned, I therefore am of the opinion that gene patenting is wrong.
The Power of Patents
Biotech giants like Monsanto have farmers under their thumb. If one farmer (whom we will call the grower) purchases and plants seeds that they buy from another farmer (whom we will call the seller) who had harvested them from a previous crop of Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, which were bought and paid for by the seller, then the grower must still pay royalties to Monsanto. This means that even if Monsanto did not directly produce the seeds themselves (the seeds are second-generation), but a crop contains their gene, then they can (and will) sue anyone who grows it, even if the grower does not know that their crop contains a gene that Monsanto owns the patent for, e.g., if the seeds were not labeled by the seller (Monsanto.com). This phenomenon often ruins the livelihoods of farmers, and because gene patenting in plants has allowed enormous companies to take control of the food industry, they can easily afford the best lawyers to defend them from any challengers.
The Next Steps
Although I support research in the field of genetic engineering, I do not think that any type of gene—natural or synthetic—should be owned, nor do I think that corporations should have the immense power that they do as a result of it. Disallowing human gene patenting was a step in the right direction, but we shouldn’t stop there. If you are in agreement with my views on gene patenting, please join me in letting the government know through protest, petition, demonstration, and direct action that we do not support the ownership of any gene, by anyone.
Works Cited
Goh, Rachel. “Gene Patents: 2010 Update.” Gene Patenting | Information on Gene Patenting. N.p., 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://genepatents.info>.
Marshall, Eliot, and David Malakoff. “U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Monsanto Soybean Patents, Rejects Blame-the-Bean Defense.”Science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 13 May 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/u.s.-supreme-court-upholds-monsanto-soybean-patents-rejects-blame-bean-defense>.
Park, Sandra S.. “VICTORY! Supreme Court Decides: Our Genes Belong to Us, Not Companies.” Blog of Rights. American Civil Liberties Union, 13 June 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/victory-supreme-court-decides-our-genes-belong>.
Pollack, Andrew. “After Patent Ruling, Availability of Gene Tests Could Broaden.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 13 June 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/business/after-dna-patent-ruling-availability-of-genetic-tests-could-broaden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&>.
Controversies in Modern Genomics
September 26, 2013
Professor Tamara Williams
On June 13, 2013, The United States Supreme Court ruled that companies may not hold patents on human genes, deciding that our genes are ours, and do not belong to companies (Park). The verdict has ended Myriad Genetics’ monopoly in the field of molecular diagnostics, allowing other laboratories to offer genetic tests for a variety of conditions including breast cancer, which in turn has made the testing much more available and affordable for patients (Pollack). Though this is certainly a victory for people who oppose gene patenting, the battle is not won yet. Exactly one month earlier, it was decided that Monsanto’s patents on genetically engineered seeds are valid and that any farmer growing crops that contain Monsanto’s gene for glyphosphate (an herbicide) resistance must pay royalties to the company even if the seeds were not purchased from them (Marshall and Malakoff). My question is: why is it legal for large corporations, or anyone for that matter, to hold patents only on certain types of life? My stance is that no one should be allowed to patent any gene, be it human, plant, or other.
People versus Plants
The main difference between patents on human genes such as BRCA 1/2 and plant genes is that the human genes in question have occurred naturally, whereas the plants’ genes have been bioengineered. That is, the DNA sequences in Monsanto’s seeds are in a form that did not exist previously (Goh). But this does not necessarily mean that the plant’s genes for pesticide and herbicide resistance couldn’t have developed in nature; they just hadn’t. Because I believe that evolutionary traits should not be owned, I therefore am of the opinion that gene patenting is wrong.
The Power of Patents
Biotech giants like Monsanto have farmers under their thumb. If one farmer (whom we will call the grower) purchases and plants seeds that they buy from another farmer (whom we will call the seller) who had harvested them from a previous crop of Monsanto’s genetically modified organisms, which were bought and paid for by the seller, then the grower must still pay royalties to Monsanto. This means that even if Monsanto did not directly produce the seeds themselves (the seeds are second-generation), but a crop contains their gene, then they can (and will) sue anyone who grows it, even if the grower does not know that their crop contains a gene that Monsanto owns the patent for, e.g., if the seeds were not labeled by the seller (Monsanto.com). This phenomenon often ruins the livelihoods of farmers, and because gene patenting in plants has allowed enormous companies to take control of the food industry, they can easily afford the best lawyers to defend them from any challengers.
The Next Steps
Although I support research in the field of genetic engineering, I do not think that any type of gene—natural or synthetic—should be owned, nor do I think that corporations should have the immense power that they do as a result of it. Disallowing human gene patenting was a step in the right direction, but we shouldn’t stop there. If you are in agreement with my views on gene patenting, please join me in letting the government know through protest, petition, demonstration, and direct action that we do not support the ownership of any gene, by anyone.
Works Cited
Goh, Rachel. “Gene Patents: 2010 Update.” Gene Patenting | Information on Gene Patenting. N.p., 24 Feb. 2011. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://genepatents.info>.
Marshall, Eliot, and David Malakoff. “U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Monsanto Soybean Patents, Rejects Blame-the-Bean Defense.”Science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science, 13 May 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://news.sciencemag.org/2013/05/u.s.-supreme-court-upholds-monsanto-soybean-patents-rejects-blame-bean-defense>.
Park, Sandra S.. “VICTORY! Supreme Court Decides: Our Genes Belong to Us, Not Companies.” Blog of Rights. American Civil Liberties Union, 13 June 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2012. <https://www.aclu.org/blog/womens-rights-free-speech-technology-and-liberty/victory-supreme-court-decides-our-genes-belong>.
Pollack, Andrew. “After Patent Ruling, Availability of Gene Tests Could Broaden.” The New York Times – Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. The New York Times, 13 June 2013. Web. 26 Sept. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/business/after-dna-patent-ruling-availability-of-genetic-tests-could-broaden.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&>.