Comments on: IPRIA+CITE Public Forum on Gene Patents

By: Update on Gene Patents (June-Dec 2009) « Gene Patenting

Update on Gene Patents (June-Dec 2009) « Gene Patenting — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 09:41:13 +0000

[...] both for and against gene patents have unfolded. Issues highlighted by IPRIA+CITE’s public forum in April continue to feature in government and media debate. Just last month, the Federal Circuit [...]

By: PSI handling and rights in Vic (3) « Balneus

PSI handling and rights in Vic (3) « Balneus — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:02:29 +0000

[...] Gene Patents Inquiry Page which unusually has a link to vodcasts from a public forum "Should Genes Be Patented?" [...]

By: Gillian Mitchell

Gillian Mitchell — Tue, 19 May 2009 07:24:29 +0000

A few other thoughts came to me after the session:
1. the statement by the CSIRO IP officer that their gene patents were only granted when a probable use could be described – to me it is irrelevant whether a commercial use can be described or not if it is first agreed that patents cannot be granted on human beings and their material, ie that the genetic material is part of the make up of a human being and we reject the sophistic argument that DNA is no longer protected from being the focus of a patent once it is extracted from tissue and amplified for the purpose of analysis so that it is now a “chemical”
2. the comment that concern about gene patents is overstated as it only affects a finite number of genes anyway and that the “genie is out of the bottle” as far as gene patents are concerned – so we should just stick with the status quo. If we agree with this comment and not exclude DNA from being the focus of a patent, then we will have the same problem but worse in the future once more RNA codes are uncovered and the associated protein structures are elucidated. As these last two structures have much more potential as drug targets and so will be of interest to commercial enterprises, this will become very problematic as there are millions of possible RNA codes/proteins to be discovered.

I will have to try and find some way of expressing comment 2 in particular to the Senate Enquiry as I would hate them to focus solely on the consequences of genetic testing alone. I think the wider consequences of patents on other biological molecules is potentially much more problematic.

Kind regards

Gillian

By: kwanghui

kwanghui — Thu, 14 May 2009 02:29:23 +0000

Thanks, Trevor, Here’s a link to the ABC news report: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2009/s2561751.htm

Meanwhile the ACLU in the United States is trying to fight against gene patent tests: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/05/aclu-wants-patents-on-gene-tests-declared-unconstitutiona.ars

By: Trevor Kerr

Trevor Kerr — Tue, 05 May 2009 09:50:36 +0000

Getting a run on 7.30 Report right now.

By: Trevor Kerr

Trevor Kerr — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:08:50 +0000

Two things from the issues discussed at the seminar on Friday.
1) Gillian Mitchell alluded to the cost-saving potential of using genetic markers to predict and, by implication, prevent colon cancer. I’d like to see the modelling for that example. As we sat there that morning, how many colo-rectal surgeons were toiling away at several hundred dollars per hour, and how would they react to use of a test that deprived them of income? Maybe all of them would be happy about it, but, surely, it’s pretty easy to calculate the transfer of $$$ from the surgery sector to the public health budget?
2) Conflict-of-interest questions arise whenever oncologists open their mouths, especially when they take on the “gatekeeper” role. It’s a pity that public discourse hardly ever calls for declarations of financial connections to Pharma. The current case against Merck’s Vioxx will keep reminding the public about the medicos who dine off Pharma. In the interests of vulnerable people who finish up paying out for expensive chemotherapy before they die, it would be better to bring on the discussion about management of conflicts.
(There is an article in The Age April 28th by Garry Jennings about relationships between basic research and Pharma.)