🚀 go-pugleaf

In parallel with the patenting of basic and obvious techniques in software
design the patenting of genetic sequences has been going on. Not products or
processes based on the understanding of the sequences, but the sequences 
themselves. It looks possible that this genetic parallel issue may force the
issue of intellectual property rights into the wider public consciousness,
which is where the only real law changes can be expected to come from now.

IMHO much may be acheived in stopping outrageous software patents by making 
sure that the issue is amalgamated with the fight against outrageous genetic 
patents. After all everyone has genes. 

Below I have typed in an article in a major UK newspaper, The Guardian, from
30th April 1992, written by Sir Walter Bodmer, Director General of the Imperial
Cancer Research Fund and President of the Human Genome Organisation. His
comments have a startling applicability to software patents, in particular
the sections on the criteria for patentability and legal complexity. 

I have typed this in without the knowledge or permission of the Guardian. I am
an independant consultant and my views are not necessarily the views of any of
my clients.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Walter Bodmer condemns over-hasty moves 
to patent the fruits of genetic research

                           HANDS OFF THE HUMAN GENE!
                           -------------------------

Geneticists, scientific organisations and governments around the world are 
uniting in opposing American attempts to patent small fragments of human genes
without knowing what they actually do in the body. The attempts have also been
heavily criticised by Nobel prize-winner James Watson, who recently resigned
as head of the US government's National Institute of Health (NIH) human gene 
research programme.

The patent applications, by a scientific group working for the state-funded
NIH, appear to have US government backing. Among those who have come out 
against them are the EC, the Japanese and Chinese governments, the American 
Society of Genetics, the Royal Society and the Human Genome Organisation 
(HUGO), of which I am president.

Hugo is a non-profit, international organisation of scientists set up to
co-ordinate activities within the Global Human Gename Project. Oneof its 
priorities is to make it as easy as possible for scientists studying human 
genes to exchange data and materials and to encourage the spread of essential 
technologies. HUHO's view has always been that the basic genome data should be
openly available to scientists all over the world and not used to secure narrow
national interests.

The Human Genome Project is a systematic effort to map and sequence the entire
human genome - the genetic blueprint which determines the make-up of each
individual. Our bodies are made up of 100 million million cells. Within each
call are 23 pairs of chromosomes containing DNA, which carries the essential 
genetic information for each individual. The DNA language is written using
four different chemicals - it is a four letter language. Sequences of DNA make
up the genes, and there are at least 50,000 of them.

The aim of the project is to identify all the genes, to map their locations on
the chromosomes and, ultimately, to identify the sequence of chemical letters
that makes up each gene. Technology has been developed to speed up considerably
the first two operations, but not yet the third. Finding ways fast and cheap 
enough to identify the gene sequences presents a major technological challenge.

Patenting to protect intellectual property is essential for the commercial
exploitation of the discoveries that come from the human genome analysis,
which I am convinced will underpin the pharmaceutical industry of the future.
The key issue is at what stage to patent without inhibiting the international
collaboration and exchange of materials and data which is a key to the
effective prosecution of the genome project.

I believe that the appropriate stage is when a use can be proposed for a DNA
sequence that satisfies the usual requirements, non-obviousness, novelty and
applicability. There is no need to patent the DNA sequence itself, leaving this
information to be exchanged freely among the scientific community. The
arguments against the US NIH application for patenting of gene fragments is
that this could seriously inhibit exchange of materials and information 
at a premature stage of the project's development, and would imply a
significant and worrying change inb criteria for patentability.

It should be clear, of course, that patent in principal makes information 
available for research and only puts constraint on commercial exploitation.

Patents are essential to make it commercially worthwhile for pharmaceutical
and biotechnology companies to bring the results of basic research to the point
where they can be used to prevent and cure disease. Patents are also valuable
in protecting the intellectual property rights of the scientists whose basic
research has led to the findings; such patenting is a way of ensuring, through
the payment of royalties, that there is a direct financial return for the
taxpayer who, after all, provided the money for the basic research, so that 
the commercial companies are not the only ones to make a profit. 

So it is not a question of whether to patent gene sequences, but when to do so,
and the right time is when their usefulness is known.

What if the Americans succeed in their applications which, let us remember,
are for thousands of gene fragments of no known function?

For a start, the Medical Research Council would be forced to follow suit to
protect the UK position. It is quite likely other governments and 
individuals would follow, creating a flood of patent applications. It is
possible, too, that the resulting restrictions on the free exchange of
information would become so great that scientists would just ignore them.

Hugo has been in touch with patent offices around the world and it is clear
that patent law is so complex and varied that a single, global directive will
be impossible to achieve. What should be possible, however, is international
agreement between those involved in the Human Genome Project.

Most important of all is that the enormous value of the project to the
future health of mankind must not be diminished in any way by wrangling
over patents.