Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

DNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: Assessing benefits and risks

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper focuses on the question of whether DNA patents help or hinder scientific discovery and innovation. While DNA patents create a wide variety of possible benefits and harms for science and technology, the evidence we have at this point in time supports the conclusion that they will probably promote rather than hamper scientific discovery and innovation. However, since DNA patenting is a relatively recent phenomena and the biotechnology industry is in its infancy, we should continue to gather evidence about the effects of DNA patenting on scientific innovation and discovery as well the economic, social, and legal conditions relating to intellectual property in biotechnology. We should give the free market, the courts, researchers, and patent offices a chance to settle issues related to innovation and discovery, before we seek legislative remedies, since new laws proposed at this point would lack adequate foresight and could do more harm than good. However, we should be open to new laws or regulations on DNA patents if they are required to in order to deal with some of the biases and limitations of the free market.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) (2000) Primer: Genetic Research, Patent Protection and 21st Century Medicine. BIO, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Enserink, M. (2000) Patent Office may raise the bar on gene claims. Science 287: 1196–1197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Resnik, D. (1997) The morality of human gene patents. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 7, 1: 43–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Resnik, D. (1999) Privatized biomedical research, public fears, and the hazards of government regulation: lessons from stem cell research. Health Care Analysis 7: 273–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Joint Appeal Against Human and Animal Patenting (1995) Press Conference Text. Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, Washington, DC, 17 May, 1995.

  6. Council for Responsible Genetics (2000) The Genetic Bill of Rights. Council for Responsible Genetics, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  7. AMCG (1999) Position statement on gene patents and the accessibility of gene testing. AMCG, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  8. AMA (1997) Report of the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: patenting the human genome. AMA, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  9. ASHG (1991) Position paper on patenting of expressed sequence tags. ASHG, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  10. HUGO (1995) HUGO statement on the patenting of DNA sequences. HUGO, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  11. PTO (1999) Revised utility examination guidelines. Federal Register 64, 244: 71440–71442.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brody, H. (1999) Protecting human dignity and the patenting of human genes. In: Chapman, A. (ed.) Perspectives on Gene Patenting. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 111–126.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hanson, M. (1997) Religious voices in biotechnology: the case of gene patenting. Hastings Center Report 27, 6 (Special Supplement): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ossorio, P. (1999) Common heritage arguments and the patenting of human DNA. In: Chapman, A. (ed.) Perspectives on Gene Patenting. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Merz, J. et al. (1997) Disease gene patenting is bad innovation. Molecular Diagnosis 2/4: 299–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Heller, M. and Eisenberg, R. (1998) Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons in biomedical research. Science 280: 698–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nelkin, D. and Andrews, L. (1998) Homo economicus: the commercialization of body tissue in the age of biotechnology. Hastings Center Report 28, 5: 30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chapman, A. (1999) Background and overview. In: Chapman, A. (ed.) Perspectives on Gene Patenting. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 7–40.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rifkin, J. (1998) The Biotech Century. Penguin, Putnam, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Knoppers, M. (1999) Status, sale, and patenting of human genetic material: an international survey. Nature Genetics 22: 23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Foster, F. and Shook, R. (1993) Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks, 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  22. US Constitution (1787) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

  23. PTO (2000) General Information Concerning Patents. PTO, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guenin, L. (1996) Norms for patents concerning human and other life forms. Theoretical Medicine 17: 279–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barigna, M. (1999) Genentech, UC settles suit for $200 million. Science 286: 1655.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bowie, N. (1994) University-Business Partnerships: an Assessment. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Krimsky, S. et al. (1996) Financial interests of authors in scientific publications. Science and Engineering Ethics 2/4: 396–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wade, N. (1994) The erosion of the academic ethos: the case of biology. In: Bowie, N. University-Business Partnerships: an Assessment. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD, pp. 143–158.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eisenberg, R. (1995) Patenting organisms. Encyclopedia of Bioethics, revised edition. Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 1911–1914.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Bugos, G. and Kevles, D. (1992) Plants as intellectual property: American practice, law, and policy in world context. Osiris 7: 75–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Funk Brothers Seed Co. vs. Kalo Inculcant Co. (1948) 333 US, 127–132.

  32. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US, 303–310.

  33. Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US, 309–310.

  34. Eisenberg, R (1997) Structure and function in gene patenting. Nature Genetics 15/2: 125–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Doll, J. (1998) The patenting of DNA, Science 280: 689–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Reynolds, T. (2000) Gene patent race speeds ahead amid controversy, concern. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92,/3: 184–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuflik, A. (1989) Moral foundations of intellectual property rights. In Weil, V. and Snapper, J. (eds.) Owning Scientific and Technical Information. Rutgers University Press, Brunswick, NJ, pp. 29–39.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Locke, J. (1980, 1764). Second Treatise of Government. Hackett, Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Kantorovich, A. (1993) Scientific Discovery. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Klee, R. (1997) Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Oxford University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Gerth, J. and Stolberg, S. (2000) Medicine merchants: birth of a blockbuster; drug makers reap profits on tax-backed research. New York Times (23 April 2000): A1.

  42. Merz, J and Cho, M. (1998). Disease genes are not patentable. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7: 417–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wong, D. (1997) The ABCs of Molecular Cloning. Chapman and Hall, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Varmus, H. and Collins, F. (1999) Letter to Q. Todd Dickinson, US Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks. 21 December 1999.

  45. PTO (1999) Revised utility examination guidelines. Federal Register 64, 244: 71441.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Stolberg, G. and Gerth, J. (2000) Medicine merchants: holding down the competition. New York Times, 23 July 2000: A1.

  47. Tribble, J. (1998) Gene patents—a pharmaceutical perspective. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7: 429–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Woollett, G. and Hammond, O. 1999. An industry perspective on the gene patenting debate. In: Chapman, A. (ed.) Perspectives on Gene Patenting. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Scott, R. (2000) Testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 13 July 2000.

  50. Henner, D. (2000) Testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 13 July 2000.

  51. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IFPMA). (1997) Position paper on patents and pharmaceuticals. IFPMA, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Genetic Alliance (2000) Statement submitted to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, 13 July 2000.

  53. Marshall, E. (1999). A high-stakes gamble on genome sequencing. Science 284: 1906–1909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Normile, D. (2000) Monsanto donates its share of golden rice. Science 289: 843–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Gorman, C. (1999) Drugs by design. Time Magazine, 11 January 1999: 79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Kleyn, P. and Vesell, E. (1998) Genetic variation as a guide to drug development. Science 281: 1820–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Fisher, L. (1999) The race to cash in on the genetic code. New York Times (29 August 1999): A1.

  58. Enriquez, J. (1998) Genomics and the world’s economy. Science 281: 925–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Jaffe, A. (1996) Trends and patterns in research and development expenditures in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93: 12568–12663.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Beardsley, T. (1994) Big-Time Biology. Scientific American 271 (5): 90–94.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Carey, J. et al. (1997) The biotech century. Business Week (10 March): 79–88.

  62. Berenson, A. and Wade, N. (2000) A call for sharing of research causes gene stocks to fall. New York Times, 15 March 2000: A1.

  63. Lemonick, M. and Thompson, D. (1999) Racing to map our DNA. Time Magazine, 11 January 1999: 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Wade, N. (2000) Analysis of genome is said to be complete. New York Times, 7 April, 2000: A1.

  65. Celera Genomics (2000) About Celera. www.celera.com/corporate/about/overview.cfm, 27 September 2000.

  66. Wade, N. 1998. It’s a three legged race to decipher the human genome. New York Times, 23 June 1998: A3.

  67. Adams, M. et al. (2000) The genome sequence of Drosophila melanogaster. Science 287: 2185–2195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Murashige, K. (1999) Criticisms of gene patenting: potential legal accomodations. In: Chapman, A. (ed.) Perspectives on Gene Patenting. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC, pp. 237–44.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kahn, P. (1998) Coming to grips with genes and risk. Science 274: 496–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Dreyfuss, R. (2000) Collaborative research: conflicts on authorship, ownership, and accountability. Vanderbilt Law Review 53. 1161–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Harris, N. (1999) It’s time to “out” the selfish researchers. Nature 398: 102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Wadman, M. (1999) NIH strives to keep resource sharing alive. Nature 399: 291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Nadis, S. (1999) US concern grows over secrecy clauses. Nature 284: 359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Gibbs, W. (1996) The price of silence: does profit-minded secrecy retard scientific progress? Scientific American 275, 5: 15–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Marshall, E. (2000). A deluge of patents creates legal hassles for research. Science 288: 255–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Blumenthal, D. (1997) Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association 277: 1224–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Merton, R. (1973) The Sociology of Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Munthe, C. and Welin, S. (1996) The morality of scientific openness. Science and Engineering Ethics 2,/4: 411–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Resnik, D. (1998) The Ethics of Science. Routledge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Resnik, D. (1998). Industry sponsored research: secrecy versus corporate responsibility. Business and Society Review 99:31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hull, D. (1988) Science as a Process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Resnik, D (1998) Conflicts of interest in science. Perspectives on Science 6/4: 381–408.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Davidson, R. (1986) Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. Journal of General Internal Medicine 1: 155–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Friedberg, M. et al. (1999) Evaluation of conflict of interest in new drugs used in oncology. Journal of the American Medical Association 282: 1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Flanagin, A. (2000) Conflict of interest. In: Jones, A. and McLellan, F. (eds.) Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, pp. 137–65.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Svatos, M. (1996) Biotechnology and the utilitarian argument for patents. Social Philosophy and Policy 13: 113–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Andre, J. (1992) Blocked exchanges: a taxonomy. Ethics 103/1: 29–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Thomas, S. (1999) Genomics and intellectual property rights. Drug Discovery Today 4 (3): 134–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Block, D. and Curran, D. (1998) Patenting genomic technology (letter). Science (1998): 1419.

  90. Marshall, E. (1999). Drug firms to create public database of genetic mutations. Science 284: 406–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Roberts, L. (2000) SNP Mappers confront reality and find it daunting. Science 287: 1898–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Marshall, E. (2000). Patent on HIV receptor provokes outcry. Science 287: 1375–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Marshall, E. (2000). Talks of public-private deal end in acrimony. Science 287: 1723–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Pennisi, E. (2000) Stealth genome rocks researchers. Science 288: 239–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Fox, D. and Paul, T. (1999) The “EST” dilemma: should the discovery of a part of a gene lead to a patent that could cover the entire gene once discovered? Health Law News 13/2: 7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Humanities, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, USA

    David B. Resnik

Authors
  1. David B. Resnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. DNA patents and scientific discovery and innovation: Assessing benefits and risks. SCI ENG ETHICS 7, 29–62 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0023-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-001-0023-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation