Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.

 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate


On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.


RSS 2.0

Patently absurd

By Leslie Cannold and Luigi Palombi - posted Monday, 10 May 2010

We tend to think of patents as good, or at least necessary, legal tools. Patents provide legal protection for innovations on which inventors rely to recoup the investment of time and money they made to develop a new medication, or bring a new product to market.

But where wrongly applied, patents can stifle innovation, drive up costs and restrict access to medicines and diagnostic tests. They can literally put lives at risk. Patents on genes do just this, yet the Australian government continues to grant them every year. To date, around 15,000 patents on human genes have been granted around the world, including linked to cystic fibrosis, hearing loss, hereditary haemochromatosis, long QT syndrome Tay-Sachs and Alzheimer’s disease.

Among the most high-profile victims of inappropriate patents are women at risk, or suffering from, hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Myriad Genetics has patents on two of the genes that predict such cancers. Their proprietary control means scientists must seek Myriad’s permission to use the genes in studies designed to understand the condition, and to develop effective cures. Myriad has also used its monopolistic control to prevent women getting tested to find out whether they carry the gene in non-Myriad laboratories. In America, this meant that sick women could either pay the company’s exorbitantly high fee for the test or go without.


In Australia, with our public health system, such extortionist tactics target the taxpayer. When Amgen had its 20-year patents on anemia treatment Erythropoietin or Epo extended by the Australian patent office few years back, $250 million was added to the public health bill. At least the treatment remains available. At the Westmead Children’s Hospital in Sydney, doctors are prohibited by a patent on the SCN1A gene from testing infants for epilepsy. This is despite the fact that those baby’s parents, and all other taxpayers, funded the research that identified the gene in the first place.

Americans have had enough. In a landmark decision last month, a New York court ruled that patents for the genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer should never have been granted. The judge ruled that genes are products of nature, not innovations that can or should be made corporate property. Genes are part of all our bodies, the court noted, containing fundamental information about human life and heath that should be available to everyone, not locked up by private companies for profit.

While Myriad intends to challenge the ruling in a case that seems destined for the US Supreme Court, for the moment the Federal Court judgment is the law of the land. Until further notice, the US patent office will not grant any further patents on human genes isolated from the body, while those granted to date are now in jeopardy.

Australian are not so lucky, or at least not yet. The Australian Senate recently concluded a public consultation about the appropriate role of patents in regulating gene technology, but has yet to make recommendations. The inquiry looked at the impact of patents on the provision and costs of healthcare, the training of healthcare providers, the progress of medical research and the “health and wellbeing of the Australian people.” Its findings have been delayed due to the “complex nature of many issues associated with this inquiry” (and, it is rumoured, the well-funded and vociferous lobbying efforts of bio-tech companies). Australian legislators must also now be attentive to the US court decision, as US and Australian patent laws are kissing cousins. This means that while the American decision is not binding on Australian courts, it should have persuasive effect.

Australian supporters of current legal arrangements say that without patents, medical innovation will grind to a halt. Why should companies invest in research from which they cannot profit? In a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, Noble Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and John Sulston argue that for science to progress, and medical care to improve, the knowledge derived from genes must remain in the public domain, not locked up by patents.  “As we move into an era where the sequencing of all of an individual's genes is common and necessary for personalized medicine, free sharing of information about genes will be vital … to translate this information into medical advancements.”

Genes are part of our bodies. The understandings derived from them - knowledge critical to understanding and curing disease - is the birthright of all humanity, not the private property of a corporation. If we want knowledge about human nature and human health to flourish, we must ensure it is available to and for us all.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

First published in The Age on April 27, 2010.

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Authors

Dr Leslie Cannold is a writer, columnist, ethicist and academic researcher. She is the author of the award-winning What, No Baby? and The Abortion Myth. Her historical novel The Book of Rachael was published in April by Text.

Dr Luigi Palombi is director of the Genetic Sequence Right project at the Australian National University and the author of Gene Cartels (Scribe 2009).

Other articles by these Authors

All articles by Leslie Cannold
All articles by Luigi Palombi

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy