Granting Patents on Genes? I

¶ … granting patents on genes? I want to know the answer because: Gene patents are a hot button issue right now. The ACLU has filed suited against Myriad Genetics in a dispute over the issue. There has also been some concern that as the number of genes patented increases, eventually researchers will have little room in which to operate, as they will be constantly bumping up against patented genes. The idea of a patent pool has been floated, too allow for researchers to easily access patent information.

Yet at present, there is little movement from either the industry or Congress with regards to laying out a framework for this issue. The number of cases we are starting to see means that it may come down to the Supreme Court. It is worth knowing what the best solution to the issue might be -- what models could ensure that property rights are protected but that research is allowed to continue unabated.

I would find the answer myself by: Looking at models that exist elsewhere to see what the outcomes are. If those outcomes are desirable, perhaps the same systems can be implemented in the realm of gene patenting. The fears of some that research could be stifled may be unfounded, given past experience in other fields. Thus, outside models can be the source of inspiration for the best model for gene patenting. It is also worth considering what the Supreme Court might think of the issue.

Should the issue land in that court, past case history and expectations of the justices' views on the relevant issues will help to determine what the future might hold. Response to Article 1: In the U.S., an increase in the number of rejections has been related to the second pair of eyes policy and certain aspects of the motivational structure for patent examiners. The allowance rate for patent applications dropped from 72% to 44% in 8 years. I wonder if Europe is experiencing similar issues with the motivation system for its examiners.

They could be pushed into demanding higher quality. However, compared to the drops in the U.S., the drops in Europe are not as staggering. Or the quality of patent applications is genuinely decreasing. The bigger issue as I see it is trying to determine if the decrease in patent rates is directly indicative of an environment where researchers feel stifled.

If that is the case, at what point do the demands for high quality applications have a negative net impact on society rather than a positive one? Response to Article 2: This is scary. The drug and biotech industries have a complex enough relationship with the legal system already, without adding fifty-one other jurisdictions into the mix. That the Supreme Court justices did not consider the vagueness of the "not strong enough" concept is also alarming.

If this term is not defined, how can a company possibly be expected to uphold it? I guess now that depends on the sympathy level of the jury. What I am curious about is with.