Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Science and Society
  • Published:

Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate

Nature Reviews Genetics volume 1, pages 227–231 (2000)Cite this article

Abstract

The biotechnology industry has become firmly established over the past twenty years and gene patents have played an important part in this phenomenon. However, concerns have been raised over the patentability of human genetic material, through public protests and international statements, but to little effect. Here we discuss some of these concerns, the patent authorities' response to them, and ways in which to address these issues and to move the debate forward using current legal structures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Rifkin, J. The Biotech Century (Penguin Putnam, New York, 1998 ).

    Google Scholar 

  2. American College of Medical Genetics, Position Statement on Gene Patents and Accessibility of Gene Testing (1999). www.faseb.org/genetics/acmg/pol-34.htm

  3. Sarma, L. Biopiracy: Twentieth century imperialism in the form of international agreements . Temple International and Comparative Law Journal 13, 107–136 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Thomas, S. et al. Ownership of the human genome. Nature 380, 387–388 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Thomas, S. in The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (eds Caulfield, T. Williams-Jones, B.) 55–62 (Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing, New York, 1999 ).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Nau, J. Y. Brevetabilité des gènes humains: le comité d'éthique en désaccord avec la directive européenne. Le Monde 15 June (2000).

  7. Kolata, G. Special Report: Who owns your genes? New York Times 15 May (2000).

  8. Ramirez, A. School given patent to clone humans. National Post 16 May (2000).

  9. Sagar, A., Daemmrich, A. & Ashiya, M. The tragedy of commoners: biotechnology and its publics . Nature Biotechnol. 18, 2– 4 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Angell, M. Is academic medicine for sale? N. Engl. J. Med. 20, 1516–1518 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Pottagem, A. The inscription of life in law: gene, patents, and bio-politics. The Modern Law Review 61, 740–765 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gold, E. R. Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials (Georgetown Univ. Press, Washington DC, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Caulfield, T. & Gold, E. R. Whistling in the wind: reframing the genetic patent debate. Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy 15, 75–79 ( 2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ernst and Young's Fourth Report on the Canadian Biotechnology Industry. Can. Biotechol. '97: Coming of Age (Ernst and Young, 1997).

  15. President and Fellows of Harvard v. Commissioner of Patents (August 3, 2000) No. A-334–398 (Fed. Crt of Appeals).

  16. Nottingham, S. Eat Your Genes (St. Martin's, New York, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roberts, T. Why not patent plants? Patent World 113, 14–16 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Schehr, R. & Fox, J. Human genome bombshell. Nature Biotechnol. 18, 365 (2000 ).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Marcus, A. Owning a gene: patent pending. Nature Med. 2, 728–729 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Nelkin, D. & Andrews, L. Homo economicus: Commercialization of body tissue in the age of biotechnology. Hastings Center Report 28, 30–39 ( 1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Heller, M. & Eisenberg, R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280 , 698–701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Knoppers, B. M. Status, sale and patenting of human genetic material: an international survey . Nature Genet. 22, 23– 26 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bunk, S. Researchers feel threatened by disease gene patents. The Scientist 13, 7 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists. ACLPS Resolution: Exclusive Licenses for Diagnostic Tests Approved by the ACLPS Executive Council 06/03/99 (1999). http://depts.washington.edu/labweb.aclps/license/htm

  25. Cho, M. K. in Preparing for the Millennium: Laboratory Medicine in the 21st Century, December 4–5, 1998, 2nd edn 47–53 (AACC, Washington DC, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Caulfield, T. & Gold, E. R. Genetic testing, ethical concerns, and the role of patent law. Clin. Genet. 57, 370–375 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Bruzzone, L. The research exemption: a proposal. Am. Intell. Prop. Law Assoc. QL 21, 52 (1993).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Parker, D. Patent infringement exemptions for life science research. Houston J. Intl Law 16, 615 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Gold, E. R. in Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal and Policy Issues (eds Caulfield, T. & Williams–Jones, B.) 63– 78 (Plenum, New York, 1999).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Schissel, A., Merz, J. F. & Cho, M. K. Survey confirms fear about licensing of genetic tests . Nature 402, 118 ( 1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Blumenthal, D. et al. Withholding Research Results in Academic Life Science: Evidence From a National Survey of Faculty J. Am. Med. Assoc. 277, 1224 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Caulfield, T. The commercialization of human genetics: a discussion of issues relevant to Canadian consumers. J. Consumer Policy 21, 483–526 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Packer, K. & Webster, A. Patenting culture in science: reinventing the scientific wheel of credibility. Science, Technology and Human Values 21, 425–445 ( 1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Blumenthal, D. Academic–industry relationships in the life sciences. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 268, 3344 (1992 ).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Straus, J. Intellectual property issues in genome research. Genome Digest 3, 1–2 (1996 ).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Barton, J. Reforming the patent system. Science 287, 1933–1934 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. United States Patent and Trade Mark Office. Interim Utility Guidelines (1999).

  38. Holtzman, N. Are genetic tests adequately regulated? Science 286 , 409 (1999).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Kodish, E. Commentary: Risks and benefits, testing and screening, cancer, genes and dollars . J. Law Med. Ethics 25, 252– 255 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Brower, V. News: Testing, testing, testing? Nature Med. 3, 131–132 (1997).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Weiss, R. Genetic testing's human toll. Washington Post 21 July (1999).

  42. Cowan, D. Tort liability of patentee licensors. J. Patent Office Soc. 64, 87–104 (1982).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Le Saux, O. et al. Mutations in a gene encoding an ABC transporter cause pseudoxanthoma elasticum. Nature Genet. 25, 223– 227 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Smaglik, P. Tissue donors use their influence in deal over gene patent terms. Nature 407, 821 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Human Genome Organization Ethics Committee. Genetic benefit sharing. Science 290, 49 (2000).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Health Law Institute, University of Alberta, Edmonton, T6G 2H5, Alberta, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield, E. Richard Gold & Mildred K. Cho

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Western Ontario, London, N6A 3K7, Ontario, Canada

    Timothy Caulfield, E. Richard Gold & Mildred K. Cho

  3. Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford University, Stanford, 94304, California, USA

    Timothy Caulfield, E. Richard Gold & Mildred K. Cho

Authors
  1. Timothy Caulfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E. Richard Gold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mildred K. Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Related links

Related links

DATABASE LINKS

BRCA1

APOE

FURTHER INFORMATION

American College of Medical Genetics

Unesco's 1997 Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights

European Patent Office

United States Patent Office

Canadian Patent Office

Japanese Patent Office

patent on the 'onco-mouse'

European Patent Convention

Incyte Pharmaceuticals

United States Supreme court case of Diamond versus Chakrabarty

United States Patent Office's recent interim guidelines

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caulfield, T., Gold, E. & Cho, M. Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate. Nat Rev Genet 1, 227–231 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1038/35042087

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/35042087

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing