British Columbia’s Cancer Agency is no longer running a relatively low-cost, accurate cancer test on women. Why? Because an American genetics company has patented the two genes that the test looks for, which are a signal for some types of hereditary breast cancer, and is demanding higher royalties for anything that tests for those genes.
Dr. Simon Sutcliffe, who runs the B.C. Cancer Agency, said 200 of the tests are now being routed annually to Ontario, which is ignoring the patent.
The agency used to do its own tests until the B.C. government recently ordered it to stop after legal threats by Myriad.
Myriad now wants $3,500 US for the blood test, three times what it used to cost the province.
That’s just swell, guys.
More technical info can be found here, where Myriad’s SEC filing notes that “BRCA-1 and BRCA-2 appear to be responsible for approximately 84% of the early onset hereditary breast cancer and approximately 90% of hereditary ovarian cancer.” That sort of cancer accounts for about 5-10% of all breast cancer cases. The patent is for the description of the mutated genes; any sort of test that looks for these genes, based on that information, falls under the patent, and anyone trying to sell such a test (or a therapy that uses the same info) must pay royalties.
Certainly there is value in companies that invest in basic research being able to find a way to profit thereby — that’s the incentive for them to do so. But to patent a discovery, versus an invention, seems counter-intuitive (not to mention immoral). It’s within some measure of precedent — akin to a Voyage of Discovery where the first country to plant its flag on a given rock claims and keeps the territory — but it still feels wrong, as though the first person to discover something new about how oxygen molecules interact with blood could then charge royalties every time someone breathes …
(via InstaPundit)
Very interesting article. Don’t patents on genetics run the same course as patents for medication? Lasting something like 7 years?
As you stated, the companies doing this type of research are motivated as is any other company: profit. If the public sector isn’t willing to fund this type of research, why not allow the private firm to benefit financially, at least while the patent is in place? My concern is, if we take away the motivation (profit) of this kind of research, where and who will then carry on? I don’t think our species has evolved enough where the betterment of humanity comes is a driving force.
Well, there are still some academics doing it for the sake of the advancement of knowledge. And there’s still a lot of federal grant money that goes to such research (indeed, there’s been some question as to how much federal money went into Myriad’s research). So there are some non-profit areas.
But, yeah, profit does motivate, and does advance things. But I would feel much more comfortable if Myriad had simply patented a particular test, or a particular therapy, based on the gene mapping, rather than being able to patent the mapping itself. Even if it’s just for a limited period of time, it still seems wrong to patent What Is, especially since it then removes the profit incentive for anyone to apply or extend that particular knowledge until after the patent is up (which would seem to be the opposite of the intent of copyright and patent laws, to promote useful knowledge).
If I discovered a letter from Richard Nixon confessing to complicity in the assassination of JFK, could I patent that knowledge, and ask for royalties from anyone who want to refer to that fact or make use of it in a history book? That’s what it feels like Myriad has done.
Heck, why is it laughable when this guy makes claims like this, but patent law when Myriad does something (to my mind) similar?
I’m of mixed emotions about this. Based on my love of my two daughters and wife, I think the mapping should absolutely be public domain for all to use and benefit from.
However, I think the greed motivates people to do astounding things, both good and bad. If the research was based on public funds (grants) the information should be available to all. If the information was gained at the expense of investors, the company should have the opportunity to gain financially from the research. My experiences with government grants are there are far to few checks and balances made to ensure that the funds are being used for its intended purpose.
Very interesting about Mr. Stanford.