The third article in a series of six on genetic engineering biotechnology

3 - Who owns our Genes?

Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD

4 February 1942 to 5 December 2008

One of the more insidious practices of the biotechnology industry is that of patenting. Under the guise that all their hard work and research has to be protected and paid for, biotech companies apply to patents offices for rights to hold a patent on a gene. The claim is that patents are necessary so that innovative, life-saving technologies will be developed. In fact, patents let companies create a monopoly on a product, permitting artificially high pricing. As a result, products such as drugs are often priced out of reach for many who need them, especially those in the Third World.

The European Patents Office and the US Patents Office allow patents on plants and animals, as well as patents on human genes and parts of the human body. The New York Times(16 March 2000) reported that President Clinton and UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, stated all scientific data on the human genome “should be made freely available to scientists everywhere.” Patenting changes may come.

The effect of patenting is crippling to both medicine and research. For example, research aimed at developing screening methods and cures for diseases is hampered by bio-technologists patenting their discoveries. The UK Guardian(15 December 1999)published a front page report showing that medical research and development of cures is being stifled by corporate patents on human genes. Many laboratories have received letters from lawyers acting for biotech companies demanding research into conditions such as Alzheimer’s, breast cancer and other disorders be stopped - because it infringes patents. Companies holding these patents are able to charge high fees (royalties) for testing. Many laboratories have stopped research because they know a patent is pending or has been taken out for it.

A group of scientists and doctors in the US have issued a protest that these patents and exorbitant licensing fees have the effect of limiting “access to medical care, jeopardising the quality of medical care and unreasonably raising its cost.”

Many plants and herbs of our Maori people are now under threat from this evil practice. Such natural remedies have been used by indigenous people world-wide for centuries. Now the biotech giants see big money in them. Shiseido, the giant Japanese cosmetic manufacturer, has even patented herbs used by Indonesia tribes to use in their cosmetic preparations; an example being Patent Number JP 10045555 taken out in February 1998 for use in external skin preparations

Only a short time ago “reading” the chemistry of genes and their constituents was a time consuming and expensive exercise. In the mid-1970s, it would take a laboratory two months to sequence 150 nucleotides, the molecular letters that spell out a gene. Today, commercial firms have the tools to sequence 11 million letters a day. As scientists identify new DNA sequences on our chromosomes, corporations are applying for patents which give exclusive rights to research and profits gained from such gene sequences.

The Human Genome Organisation, HUGO for short, is an international organisation of scientists dedicated to co-ordinating efforts in gene research. HUGO recently released a statement in favour of the right to patent their work. “Patents are necessary,” they claim, “to provide financial incentive for scientists to do meaningful research.” Does the research of these scientists really give them the right to own genes?

A project connected to HUGO is the Human Genome Diversity Project. Known by the critics as the Vampire Project, it aims to collect blood, hair and cell samples from up to 700 or more indigenous peoples throughout the world. The goal is to collect genetic information from ‘vanishing’ indigenous communities before they disappear. Most of these groups are outraged that researchers might patent genes without their consent. All of the targeted groups agree that the goal of cultural preservation should be achieved by more humane methods than storing their frozen genes in some tissue laboratory.

Chief Leon Shenandoah, of the Onondaga Council of Chiefs, said in a letter to the National Science Foundation, “If there is a concern for our demise, then help us survive on our terms.”

President Clinton's recent announcement, pledging to ensure that the human genome remains in the public domain, brought attention to the fundamental importance of preventing the privatisation of human genetic material. However, the effect of the statement did nothing more than lull the public into believing that something has actually been done to change that trend. The commercialisation and privatisation of the human genome was not slowed by the announcement. In fact, for the most part, the patenting and privatising of the genetic information contained in the human genome has already taken place.

And what of our crop and food plants? Experience and skills applied by indigenous farmers over centuries have created most of the food crops grown today. Gene splicing by biotech corporations now entitles them to claim a plant as their own invention and receive all profits from its use.

The hunt for new genes to exploit for profit is regarded as a vast new frontier by the biotech industries. Often using indigenous knowledge as a guide, “bio-prospectors” mine the rich genetic resources of the Third World for pharmaceutical compounds and other products. As a result, indigenous people could end up paying royalties for products based on plants and knowledge that their forefathers have used for centuries.

Patenting of plant life will intensify inequality between poor nations and the rich. The exchange of seeds and plant material over the centuries has given the rest of the world the rich diversity of foodstuffs we now enjoy.

There is an interesting story concerning what is known as “Gandhi’s Tree.” The neem tree is a native of India. It has a multitude of uses in many aspects of life, including traditional Indian Ayurvedic medicine, as well as being said to be “Gandhi’s favourite tree.” Its Latin name, Azadirachta indica, is derived from the Persian for “free tree.” Even the poorest families in India have traditionally had access to its properties. Until, that is, biotech companies “discovered” it. In 1995, a patent¹was granted to the US Department of Agriculture and US company W R Grace for a compound in the tree (azadirachtin) used in the production of a bio-pesticide. The result of this will be to out-price its availability to the vast majority of Indians.

During 1993, over five hundred thousand Indian farmers from the South rallied to protest against patents on plants and launched a nation-wide resistance movement. However, because of “free trade Agreements” great pressure is applied to Third World countries to conform and obey the “rules” even at the cost of their biodiversity.

Multi-national corporations make immense profits on their ‘discoveries’ leaving the people who fostered the knowledge for centuries no choice as to how they might use their heritage.

The nonsense churned out by the biotech companies of “Prohibiting patents on biological materials obstructs innovation and the development of new life-saving drugs” is simply not true. Important drugs and vaccines have been produced and successfully distributed in the absence of patents for years; the recent vaccine for malaria and the Salk polio vaccine are good examples. The patenting process can, of course, accelerate development of some drugs because of the promise of enormous profits.

Patents suppress competition and prevent other scientists from conducting beneficial research. They serve the interests of the investors who are looking for rapid returns. The interests of those in need of medicines are certainly not their primary concern.

It is interesting that India and Brazil are now prohibiting the patenting of medicines and food crops. As a result, vital products are available to everyone at an affordable price.

As more and more of patents are taken out - on plants, genes, cells and organs - the intellectual property rights and common heritage of mankind is being eroded on a global scale. At this point, you may start to see the incredibly destructive effects that genetic engineering biotechnology will have for future generations.

The next article in this series will be Gene therapy

Robert Anderson BSc(Hons) PhD

Robert Anderson was a Quaker, teacher and writer. He was a Trustee of Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility (www.psgr.org.nz), a member of Amnesty International, a Theosophist, and a campaigner for peace and disarmament. He believed everyone has the right to equality and respect, freedom of speech and religion He lectured on many subjects to meet the public's right to be independently informed on issues of science, the environment and social justice. He was passionate about making this world a better place for the generations to come. He authored eleven books and regularly wrote for a number of periodicals.

Enquiries about books written by Robert Anderson should be addressed to  naturesstar@xtra.co.nz

For further information see:

GE Free New Zealand in food and environment www.gefree.org.nz/

GE Free Northland in food and environment http://web.gefreenorthland.org.nz/

Physicians and Scientists for Global Responsibility www.psgr.org.nz

Sustainability Council of New Zealand http://www.sustainabilitynz.org/

The Soil & Health Association / Organic New Zealand http://organicnz.org.nz/

1The Indian government fought and won a 10-year battle with the European Patent Office (EPO) against the patent. It argued that the medicinal neem tree is part of traditional Indian knowledge.