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

Who owns you?

By The Redhead - posted Monday, 13 September 2010

When should a company be able to own a patent over something which exists naturally? Never.

Last week the ABC’s flagship investigative journalism program 4 Corners took a look at gene patents. For most Australian’s this issue isn’t even on their radar - but it should be.

There’s a landmark legal action in Australia at the moment challenging a patent over breast cancer gene BRCA1. It comes not far behind a similar action in the US which found no patent should have been granted in that situation.


The reason for the court action is to remove patents from human genes. And rightly so.

A patent means protected ownership for a defined period of time and includes exclusive use and ability to prohibit use or development by others.

You might be surprised to learn that about 20 per cent of human genes are patented in Australia, so this case will be watched closely by all sides and around the world. It will have significant impacts either way.

The argument from the biotechnology companies is that a lack of patent protection over the genes will limit their enthusiasm for research and innovation. They say that if they can’t patent genes - not just human, but plant genes and most other biological material - they won’t be able to cash in on the commercial windfall of any product they develop in relation to that biological material.

I’m a big supporter of enterprise, investment and innovation but I struggle to see why the companies are fighting so hard here. No one is seeking to stop them patenting and protecting their research product - in other words any “tests” or products etc derived from their work around the genes or other biological material.

If they’ve invented a treatment or an identification test, or whatever, then they deserve the benefits from that; and they also deserve the commercial protection a patent provides so they can maintain a good portion of the market before others who haven’t done the early leg work can cash in, riding on their coat tails.


BUT patenting a gene is wrong.

Patenting biological material that already exists in a particular form in nature is wrong.

Patents recognise invention - not discovery of something which already exists.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

11 posts so far.

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

About the Author

While making a main career in the media, The RedHead draws on a bit of life experience from the slightly less glamorous, but extremely fulfilling years mustering cattle and running a bottle shop. All have honed her skills for observing human nature and her sense of humour. She has a teenage son and a husband, and enjoys the satisfaction of the toilet seat always being down. Love Is never having to ask!

Other articles by this Author

All articles by The Redhead

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

Article Tools
Comment 11 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy