U.S. Attempt to Patent Human Genes Attacked

The federal government’s effort to patent hundreds of human genes before it is understood how those genes function ignited fierce criticism Monday at a meeting of international experts. Some scientists said such a move could turn into a frantic scientific gold rush and quash cooperation among researchers.

Until recently, scientists have applied for patents after they understood a gene’s function in the human body and how it could be used for medications. But last June, officials with the National Institutes of Health applied for a patent that would cover the rights to 340 pieces of genetic sequencing without knowing the function of those pieces.

At the third annual Human Genome conference that started here Monday, scientists said the U.S. government’s action would have a chilling effect on the collaborative international effort to uncover the human genome, or the genetic blueprint for human beings.

“Indiscriminate patenting is not a good thing,” said Kenichi Matsubara, vice president of the international Human Genome Project and head of the Japanese Genome Project. “Patenting hundreds of thousands of sequences without knowing their function is destructive to cooperative efforts.”

Scientists’ 15-year, $3-billion quest to identify the human genome has been called the “Holy Grail” of genetics. It’s also been likened to a Rosetta stone that could revolutionize medicine, potentially allowing doctors to treat diseases before there are symptoms.

The effort is touted as international, although 75% of the research is conducted in the United States.

Federal officials said Monday they were only holding their options open and acting in the best interests of the country’s biotech industry when they filed a patent application on the brain tissue work of Dr. Craig Venter of the Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke, which is affiliated with the NIH. A government patent would protect industry not only from foreign competition but an uncontrolled race to patent among U.S. firms.

“By not filing the patent application, we ran the risk of potentially missing the boat,” said Reid Adler, director of the Office of Technology Transfer at the NIH. “This was not an act of imperialism.”

The patent was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, which has not ruled on the application.

Adler dismissed the notion that the patent application would stifle international collaboration or promote secrecy among researchers. “When you file a patent application, you make a disclosure” about the nature of the work, he said.

Adler said he hoped the move to file a patent application would generate discussion among industry officials as well as scientists about the government’s best course in protecting industry without sacrificing science. American government officials, he said, have not decided whether to apply for international patents.

Some scientists said they understood the government’s efforts to protect its own industry. At the same time, they viewed the information as being very basic.

“It costs $100 million to bring a drug to the marketplace,” said Charles Cantor, principal scientist for the Department of Energy’s Human Genome Project. “The thinking is that if companies don’t have protection, they would be reluctant to go ahead with drug development. . . . But in the best of all possible worlds, these things wouldn’t be patentable.”