>>Runi Limary, a 36-year-old breast cancer survivor, told USA TODAY that one of the patented genes showed up in her body when she was 28. Suspecting ovarian cancer, she debated having her ovaries removed, but couldn’t get a second opinion because Myriad held a patent on the mutated gene that she developed.<<
Myriad has a patent on the BRCA genes in isolation. It does not have a patent on just a test. If it did, then nobody would care, because we could perform alternative tests to acquire the same information in a different, non-infringing way.
Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question.
I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good.
Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get.
A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly.
To play devil's advocate: what incentive does a private company have to do all the lab work necessary to identify a particular gene sequence as being predictive of cancer and make it publicly known? Without patents, Myriad would've just kept the gene sequence in question secret instead of publishing it. Would someone have rediscovered the proper sequence before Myriad's patent term would've expired? What would be their incentive to share it?
This is why medical and scientific research should not have profit motives attached to them. It creates perverted incentives like the situation you describe above.
Nobody "attaches" the profit motive--it is inherent. Nobody spends millions of dollars on research and dedicates years of their lives to it for free. They either do it because the government is bankrolling the endeavor (like much medical research), or because their is a potential for profit. I'm fully willing to entertain the idea that the government should be funding all this research that would otherwise be done by private industry, but someone has to pay for the R&D.
Lawyers are a bad example as they don't run on profit based accounting, typically. More of a fee for service arrangement. There do exist some lawyers with for-profit side businesses, or solely work for a for-profit business, but they're probably outnumbered by law firms + sole proprietor service provider + employed by non-profits + employed by .gov
There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr. The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
We live in a central govt controlled economy. If you have control of the government, which we probably don't, then you can also select the priorities.
It also has the assumption that profit is the only reason why people work. Simple salary arrangements work pretty well for most people, as does contract work. Some other ways people make money without profit include prizes (Nobel, etc) and being cultural heros (pro sports athletes, unfortunately definitely not biomedical research scientists)
Finally some people just love the subject area and will voluntarily starve their family, look at any STEM other than CS/IT/high level applied medical (aka hospital dr cardiologist etc). I would not bet on it, or demand that only people taking a vow of poverty are "real" scientists or whatever. But there always will be some nuts willing to eat Ramen every night for the rest of their lives.
>There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr.
The average lawyer doesn't make $200/hr. You can't compare your average biomedical postdoc to the top law school graduates. A biomedical postdoc is sacrificing pay now because he probably hopes to get a job as a tenured professor some day. It's something like clerking for a judge after law school.
Another thing, law students pay for law school, many of them rack up $150k in debt before they even start working. Most STEM PhD candidates are being paid while going to grad school.
>The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
There are far too many law school graduates each year for the amount of lawyers demanded. Unless you can get into a good school and graduate near the top, law school is probably a bad idea. While the prospects for most STEM degrees look much better than other majors.
Sorry, but law firms operate for-profit. Partners are the owners of those firms and don't give away their profits to charities at the end of every fiscal year. This is quite a ludicrous assertion. Several partners at top law firms pocket several million a year outside of their client fees. For many lawyers from top schools, making partner is the ultimate goal because of the potential windfall.
One incentive to do research is because they get paid through other means.
A report on the Sources of Cancer Research Funding in the United States (http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NC...) found that only 31% of the funding in cancer research is from industry. The majority is from tax money (federal and state), which stand for about 63% of all funding. The rest is non-profit.
Maybe that 31% would be lower without patents. Some might still do the investing because they earn money on related products (for-profit hospitals to name one). Maybe the costs in medical institutions and research labs would go down because they can spend less to lawyers. Maybe the state would be willing to spend more and have more directed taxed to replace the lost industry funding.
But we are only talking about 31%, a number I would very much like to see updated for 2013. It also a number as reported by the industry itself, so its worth asking how true it is. The only number we can be fully sure on is the billions of state and federal funding.
The alternatives in this case are, as you note, either public funding, or alternative means of monetization (e.g. a for-profit hospital). I think on the whole public funding is the way to go for this kind of medical research. The other alternative is precisely the kind of thing the patent system was designed to avoid. Is it really preferable to have private, for-profit hospitals using proprietary techniques that they don't publish in order to keep a competitive edge?
such a good person does not, on average, exist. No one cares about "humanity" - they care about their immediate loved ones, and they care about profit.
Well, this is frightening. Common sense dictates that human genes should not be patented, but with the current climate in this country, I'm not sure if common sense will prevail.
This is the money quote that summarizes the view of ~everyone in clinical care:
“You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.
I don't think anybody is arguing you can't have research without patents. People are saying that you can't have research without tons of cash. Whether that cash is a license from the government to get money from users of an invention, or a straight up check is a public policy issue. If the government funds some research, everyone pays for it whether or not they use it. If the government grants some legal protection that makes it easier to monetize that research from users, then only users pay for it. Which of those is more appropriate is context-specific.
I agree with your conclusion there, however people very much do argue that you can't (won't) have research without patents. It's almost as common a refrain as "people wouldn't create new works without strong copyright laws" or "piracy is stealing".
> Would the doctor have known what gene sequences to look for if Myriad hadn't done the R&D and published the results?
That question implies a very confused version of history. BRCA1/2 were discovered by NIH-funded researchers at universities. Some of these co-discoverers went on to found Myriad. Other co-discoverers, such as Mary-Claire King, did not.
Also, after the first large-scale GWAS studies in the late 2000s, a high school student with enough funding could have discovered the BRCA1/2 - breast cancer association.
Lots of patented technology starts out at universities via (at least some) public funding. Typically, the university demands a cut of the patent royalties. It's no one's fault but the NIH if their grants don't come with similar strings attached.
> It's no one's fault but the NIH if their grants don't come with similar strings attached.
That's also an ahistorical comment. Prior to Bayh-Dole, federal research funding obligated discoveries to be assigned to the government. Post Bayh-Dole, universities get to pursue patents even if the discovery was publicly funded.
So you actually cannot blame the NIH; you could blame Congress.
Fair point. So you think Bayh-Dole is worth repealing or modifying? A quick read through the Wikipedia article certainly makes it sound like a reasonable policy (for example, licensing is mandatory) and demonstrably preferable to the previous regime.
Bayh-Dole applies to so many things beyond my realm of knowledge that I don't know that I currently have a thoughtful idea of whether or how I would amend it, if given the chance.
I was simply pointing out that one can't blame the NIH for the lack of stipulations on their grant money.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's my body! Why should some corporation get to say how I look at myself? Imagine if the current personal DNA sequencing companies, like 23AndMe, could add checks for some of these aberrant genes? Curious if you have any pre-dispositions for genetic diseases? $300 + some spit could tell you everything you wanted to know.
>The group claims that the patents violate the First Amendment by restricting the free exchange of ideas on human body parts.
It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation.
What's at issue is not the "right to patent human genes" but the right to patent in vitro copies of human genes. The claim from one of the primary patents at issue:
"An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2"
Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself.
Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients.
Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.
I'm curious, how do such patents hinder basic research? Patents forbid commercial exploitation of a discovery; when I was doing basic research we routinely used materials that were patent protected.
If remember correctly, it is codified into law that you can use patented materials or processes in basic research.
patenting something that (i assume) is a basic component of other "products" is what's being objected to. Sure, you can _use_ the patented product/idea/method in your research, but the end result is that you cannot commercialize the research if it becomes patent encumbered (or not profitable to do so), and thus the eresearch never get funded in the first place!
As ridiculous as this patent attempt is by itself, I find it even more amusing/alarming that an American court is seen as the appropriate body to sit in judgement of the human genome.
42 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 79.4 ms ] threadWhat ! ?
Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question.
I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good.
Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get.
A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly.
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829
There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr. The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
We live in a central govt controlled economy. If you have control of the government, which we probably don't, then you can also select the priorities.
It also has the assumption that profit is the only reason why people work. Simple salary arrangements work pretty well for most people, as does contract work. Some other ways people make money without profit include prizes (Nobel, etc) and being cultural heros (pro sports athletes, unfortunately definitely not biomedical research scientists)
Finally some people just love the subject area and will voluntarily starve their family, look at any STEM other than CS/IT/high level applied medical (aka hospital dr cardiologist etc). I would not bet on it, or demand that only people taking a vow of poverty are "real" scientists or whatever. But there always will be some nuts willing to eat Ramen every night for the rest of their lives.
The average lawyer doesn't make $200/hr. You can't compare your average biomedical postdoc to the top law school graduates. A biomedical postdoc is sacrificing pay now because he probably hopes to get a job as a tenured professor some day. It's something like clerking for a judge after law school.
Another thing, law students pay for law school, many of them rack up $150k in debt before they even start working. Most STEM PhD candidates are being paid while going to grad school.
>The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead.
There are far too many law school graduates each year for the amount of lawyers demanded. Unless you can get into a good school and graduate near the top, law school is probably a bad idea. While the prospects for most STEM degrees look much better than other majors.
http://www.law.com/jsp/ca/PubArticleCA.jsp?id=1202588541180&...
A report on the Sources of Cancer Research Funding in the United States (http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Disease/NC...) found that only 31% of the funding in cancer research is from industry. The majority is from tax money (federal and state), which stand for about 63% of all funding. The rest is non-profit.
Maybe that 31% would be lower without patents. Some might still do the investing because they earn money on related products (for-profit hospitals to name one). Maybe the costs in medical institutions and research labs would go down because they can spend less to lawyers. Maybe the state would be willing to spend more and have more directed taxed to replace the lost industry funding.
But we are only talking about 31%, a number I would very much like to see updated for 2013. It also a number as reported by the industry itself, so its worth asking how true it is. The only number we can be fully sure on is the billions of state and federal funding.
You do it because you're a good person who cares more about humanity than profit.
“You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.
Why do you hate America?
That question implies a very confused version of history. BRCA1/2 were discovered by NIH-funded researchers at universities. Some of these co-discoverers went on to found Myriad. Other co-discoverers, such as Mary-Claire King, did not.
Also, after the first large-scale GWAS studies in the late 2000s, a high school student with enough funding could have discovered the BRCA1/2 - breast cancer association.
That's also an ahistorical comment. Prior to Bayh-Dole, federal research funding obligated discoveries to be assigned to the government. Post Bayh-Dole, universities get to pursue patents even if the discovery was publicly funded.
So you actually cannot blame the NIH; you could blame Congress.
I was simply pointing out that one can't blame the NIH for the lack of stipulations on their grant money.
It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation.
In a comment about patents two days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438), I linked to a talk which also brought up the fist Amendment issue with patents, and how it connect to software patents. You can also just read it (and thus jump directly to the related parts) in this transcript: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/Bils...
"An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2"
Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself.
Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients.
Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.
If remember correctly, it is codified into law that you can use patented materials or processes in basic research.
"Supreme Court to decide if anything can be patented at all"