![]() | |||
Arts & Entertainment Books Comics Health & Body Media Mothers Who Think News People Politics2000 - Free Software Project Travel & Food ![]() Columnists
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Current Click here to read the latest stories from the wires. - - - - - - - - - - - - View From the Top - - - - - - - - - - - - Also Today For a full list of today's Salon Technology stories, go to the
Technology home page. - - - - - - - - - - - - Search Salon - - - - - - - - - - - - View From the
Top
- - - - - - - - - - - - Recently in Salon Technology 21st Challenge Complete archives for Technology - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - |
Lean, green gene-counting machine | page 1, 2, 3
Let me just clarify: What you're talking about are full-length gene patents, where the medical use of the gene has been described as part of the patent application. As for making that information publicly available, your question actually is a classic example of the general misunderstanding I was just talking about. What do you suppose happens when a patent issues? Just by virtue of being patented, the information is put into the public domain. So the patents that have already been issued -- and we now have 400, by the way -- are all, by definition, in the public domain right now. And it's actually even broader than that, since we're releasing more than just gene sequence databases; there also are other types of information that are even more valuable. And all that will be put online before the end of the year. That will solve a huge problem, since, until now, a customer pretty much had to sink $1 million into computer hardware just to be able to run the Incyte database. But by putting all that data on the Internet, everybody will be able to come and use our computer power to perform their searches. So even though the information has been publicly available right along, there was a barrier in terms of computer power. That's why, historically, it's only been the drug companies that have been able to work with us. But now we can finally eliminate that last barrier. But if the information is patented, isn't there still a cost barrier? No. That's another great misconception about gene patents. What the debate is really about is licensing strategy. It's not about patents at all. When people get upset about a patent, it's usually because they think they're going to be barred from using the information. But that only rarely happens. If you look at companies like Intel and Motorola, you'll find they have thousands of patents. But you very rarely hear anyone complain that they've been barred from doing something -- and that's because the high-tech companies generally just cross-license each other. They look at the patent system as a way of getting a financial return on their R&D. And that's exactly our approach. We license our patents broadly, not exclusively. And so far, drug companies have taken out over 30,000 licenses to our intellectual property. What about academics and nonprofits? As I understand it, Celera Genomics has announced its intent to make its human genome sequence information freely available to academics without any restrictions whatsoever. Is that your intent as well? Well, let's just step back and talk about Celera for a moment. Celera made that statement over two years ago, when they first started, and, as far as I know, they've still not put a single bit of human data in the public domain. So I think we should have these debates once people have actually done what they said they were going to do. But as to your question: We absolutely mean to make our information freely available for academic and nonprofit researchers. For us, it's really just a matter of getting the Web-based distribution mechanisms in place. What exactly is the basis for asserting patent protection over a gene sequence, since what we're talking about here is something discovered, as opposed to something invented or created? Well, now that's a loaded question. So let's step back just a bit. Gene patents have been around for 20 years. They're the whole basis of today's biotech industry. Incyte is getting quite a number of gene patents now and, all of a sudden, people are paying attention -- and somehow forgetting that this is something that's actually been of great benefit to the economy for the past two decades. That's point No. 1. Then all this business about discovery vs. invention -- are you familiar with taxol, the breast cancer drug that comes from the yew tree? Well, there again, you have something that's out there in nature, but has to be purified and isolated before you can make it usable. If you look at all the genes in the human body, they've been around for -- what? -- 200,000 years. Yet only in the last couple of years have the technologies been developed to purify and isolate those genes for the good of mankind. You saw a trickle of that with Genentech and Amgen, and now you're seeing much more of it from Incyte and all the other genomics companies. And that's revolutionizing medical research. You just look at all the things that are happening today. Doing 100,000 gene scans of patient samples, new ion channels -- all that. And it's just great for the human race. So to imply that these things were just lying around out there for somebody to come along and pick up -- well, that's just a complete mischaracterization of what's actually happened. People have put a huge amount of capital at risk to purify and isolate all these genes so they can be used for medical research. That's great for the economy. And that's just exactly what the patent system was designed to encourage. |
||
Arts & Entertainment | Books | Comics | Life | News | People
Politics | Sex | Tech & Business | Audio
The Free Software Project | The Movie Page
Letters | Columnists | Salon Plus
Copyright © 2000 Salon.com All rights reserved.