Should genes be patented? Is this practice putting private profit before public good? A Federal Court action was launced last week over the patenting of breast cancer gene BRCA1. Opponents of the patent argue that patenting pushes up the price of testing for the gene, and this in turn might impede access for some who are unable to afford it. The biotech companies argue that they have invested large sums of money in R & D of genetic testing, and they should reasonably be able to recover that money via the cost of testing. What do you think? Profit or philanthropy?

The legal argument against the patenting is that patents have been given incorrectly — a patent can only be given over an invention, not a discovery. That is, you need to create something new, not just discover something already in existence, to get a patent over it. This rule would then obviously apply to the parts of the entire human body and the environment! An American court recently found that the patent had been incorrectly given and was therefore invalid. Whilst this is in some ways reassuring, it does not guarantee that the  Australian court will make the same finding. Is this intellectual property law run amok? What implications could it have for health care in the future?

To find out more go to the following link:-

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/06/08/2921468.htm?site=science