DNA Patenting Has Undesirable Social And Economic Consequences And Should Be Restricted

Should DNA patenting be allowed or restricted? This question has lingered for quite some time with some people supporting DNA patenting and others vehemently opposed to the idea. Those opposing patenting have argued that it has social and economic consequences such as hindering further research in biotechnology and blocking some patients from accessing newly available diagnostic tests. Researchers have established that patents block certain laboratories from providing and developing genetic test as well as to conduct research. It has also been argued that DNA patenting permits commoditization of human genes. This is considered to have a negative impact on human moral principles and values. Most of the concerns raised against patenting relates to its potential, detrimental social and economic consequences. On the other hand, those supporting patents have suggested that this is one way of rewarding inventors for their novel ideas, which helps to avert failures and promote research. The case of Myriad company that was granted patent right for two genetic sequences on breast cancer is often cited in debate whether or not DNA patenting should be restricted. I contend with those in support of the argument that DNA should be restricted because it has social and economic consequences.

Permitting DNA patenting, amounts to letting private companies profit on innocent lives of human beings. There is no better case to demonstrate how patenting has been used to commoditize human life than in the case of Myriad company being granted the right for BRCA1 and BRCA2. It is argued that these two genes are a risk factor for ovarian cancer and hereditary breast cancer. The patent gave the company exclusive right to control diagnostic test on these genes. Patenting in this regard is seen as an important practice to spur invention. However, patent on these particular genes overrides the moral justice because it seeks to give Myriad exclusive rights on what is freely provided by nature. It overlooks the moral justice that what should belong to the public should be left there by allowing a company to possess these genes. Besides, such researches are often funded through public funds and results should thus belong to the public.

Secondly patenting of genes hinders progress in medical technology and patient health. A company like Myriad with exclusive right on the BRCA genes enjoys monopoly in United States to control price and type of testing. The company charges exorbitant tests for testing these two genes at $4,000 compared to $1,000 charged for testing over 23,000 human genes. Additionally, their patent restricts other laboratories from give patients second opinions or test the BRCA genes when testing for other genes that are linked to ovarian cancer and hereditary breast cancer. Again, patent negatively affects research. This is because they require any researcher to either ask the holder of the patent to permit them to conduct a research or take the risk of being sued. In the case of Myriad it is accused of withholding a lot of information and refusing to share with the rest of the scientific community. Besides, patenting gives the holder the right to license genetic testing. This has denied patient access to certain tests because of the high cost of licensing. In U.S some laboratories do not provide some genetic tests because of the high cost of licensing. In Europe these increasing licensing costs are passed to an entire society because all genetic services are provided under the public health care system (Soini et al 15).

Those supporting DNA patent argue that it is a necessary measure to motivate research. It is argued that failure to reward inventors for their creativity would derail development in certain fields and affect research (Soini et al 11). However, genes patent unlike patent on other commodities can be the major hindrance to research. This is because they give one company the exclusive rights to develop all potential commercial and scientific uses of a gene, as opposed to right of particular fundamentals of human biology. Again, in some cases it is difficult to develop alternative test through different method. This gives a patent holder the right to control all the means of testing for a particular disease. This begs the question whether it is in the interest of the public that only one test can be performed to diagnose a particular disease. Giving one company exclusive rights to control all activities for a particular genetic can derail further development of alternative tests.

Indeed DNA patenting should be restricted due to its detrimental social and economic consequences. Genes patent are associated with increased cost of genetic services, which denies vulnerable patients access to critical healthcare. This has been demonstrated through the case of Myriad Company with exclusive rights to control all diagnostic tests and research on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are linked with ovarian cancer and breast cancer. Genetic patents can also act as hindrance to research and development in healthcare because only one company has the right to license any activity pertaining to a particular type of gene. It is for these reasons that I support the call for restriction of genetic patenting.

Works Cited

Soini, Sirpa, Ayme Segolene, & Matthijs, Gert. Patenting and Licensing in Genetic Testing: Ethical, Legal and Social Issues. European Journal of Human Genetics, (2008), 16, 5-55.