Genes, Gains and Tough Issues
Scientists have been unraveling genomes, the DNA software of various species, since the 1980s. But the practical implications of that esoteric work are now strikingly brought to earth. In this week’s issue of the British science journal Nature, researchers at England’s Sanger Center and the Pasteur Institute in Paris report success at unraveling the genome of the tuberculosis bacterium, which kills more people than any other infectious agent.
Scientists can now try to outwit the bacterium’s defenses. One of TB’s genes, for instance, is thought to help the bacterium change its outer coat to hide it from the human immune system. Scientists can now try to alter that process. Of course, the idea is a long way from real treatments, but understanding the entire genetic map of this germ means that all of its secrets will eventually be known.
The Sanger/Pasteur discovery is the most promising yet in the quest to eradicate TB, which has resurged in recent years with drug-resistant strains. But there’s a catch. Under U.S. law, newly discovered gene sequences can be patented and royalties can be charged for their use in applied research leading to disease cures or new products.
There’s no indication that the discoverers of the TB sequences plan to patent any of them or to restrict use of the data. But private gene researchers, backed up by hundreds of millions of dollars in new venture capital, have been racing to decode genomes and then patent those genes for profit. Think of the fortune awaiting the private discoverer of the gene sequence that decodes diabetes. Think of the chilling effect on other diabetes researchers once the discoverer files a patent.
There’s nothing wrong with competition. The Pasteur and Sanger teams actually had been locked in a race to sequence the TB genome with J. Craig Venter, a respected scientist who sequenced the first bacterial genome in 1995. But Venter’s new plan to sequence the human genome, using private money, also would patent, for profit, several hundred genes in it. Scientists, no matter how competitive their work, have generally shared their data freely--as the Sanger/Pasteur team is doing.
The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, founded two years ago by President Clinton, promised to study the implications of gene patenting. It should finally make good on that commitment and begin a national debate. How can medical patents preserve the profit motive on this burgeoning field without stifling the openness necessary to pure science? That question is no longer merely theoretical.
