Gene Patents: Who Owns Life? A Jurisprudential Inquiry

                         Gene Patents: Who Owns Life? A Jurisprudential Inquiry

Introduction

Biotechnology is the use of biology in the production of new products, methods, and organisms for the betterment of humankind. It involves the use of bacteria and living cells for industrial and scientific purposes. Biotechnology is evolving rapidly. Biotechnology encompasses the application of the whole biological system, which includes cells, tissues, organelles, etc. One such area of Biotechnology is recombinant DNA technology, which can be used in the modification of the genetic material of living cells. Research accelerating at this pace, led to the creation of a lot of biotech companies to perform activities related to biotechnology and which ultimately led to companies worrying about the protection of Intellectual Property Law to make their discoveries worthwhile and profitable and this led to the debate whether gene modification should come under patents and not. This Blog explores the debate of patents over life.

What are Genes and Gene patents

Every Organism on this planet has a genome that contains the genetic information vital for maintaining itself and for reproducing.  The genomes consist of Deoxyribonucleic acid, which is DNA, the basic building block of heredity. DNA has a double helical structure which contains sugar groups, phosphate groups, and nucleotides which are Adenosine(A) coupled with thymine(T), cytosine (c) coupled with guanine(G). The coupling serves as a rulebook for the replication and synthesis of protein. Not all nucleotides carry instructions for protein synthesis, and the stretches that carry the information are called genes. Genes are the blueprint of the human body, and any changes in genes change the genetic code, structure, and function of the cell.

Gene Patents is an intellectual property right granted by the government to any individual, company, industry, or research organization that identifies a new, isolated, or modified gene or its function.  This right ensures that others are excluded from making use of and selling that genetic sequence or product based on it.

Gene Patent in Indian Law 

India amended its Patent Act 1970 three times in a span of five years. In 2005 Indian Patent Act became fully TRIPS compliant. TRIPS is an agreement on trade-related aspects of IPR, an international agreement administered by the World Trade Organization. Section 27(1) of the TRIPS Agreement clearly states that patents should be granted for inventions in any field of technology. This implies that biotechnology is a patentable subject matter. In India, the processes that involved DNA sequencing were not patentable but became so after the 2005 amendments. Section 2(1)(j) deals with these patents in Indian patent law. In order to get a patent for an invention, three criteria are necessary, which are 

-The invention should be new and novel

- It should involve an inventive step

-It should be capable enough for industrial applications.

 However, only modified DNA sequences with applicability in the industrial field are patentable. India does not provide a patent for naturally occurring genes or DNA sequences

The Jurisprudential Dilemma: Can Genes be owned?

Some say, patenting genes is no less than patenting life itself. Life here is genes, which are the building blocks of all organisms and the centre of the controversy regarding private rights and public good. They see this patenting as unethical privatization of human inheritance and concentration of massive power in the hands of a few corporations. People consider life a gift and believe that it should not be privately owned or manipulated by anybody. People argue that genes are discoveries and not innovation; they are something that occur naturally. Just as nobody can patent oxygen and gravity, genes- part of nature, should remain unpatentable.  Over the last few years, the basic issues raised were, first, some critics questioned whether gene patents would limit free distribution of knowledge crucial to scientific progress at academic institutions. Secondly, people feared the moral and religious implications of patenting Life owned and created by God. And thirdly, whether these practices are really in favour of the public or give too much control to industries and companies.

Science always strives for the wide distribution of knowledge and information. This gene patenting will endanger this distribution. A scientist suggested that any developments that jeopardize the freedom of science and its progress will have an adverse impact on future generations. By making the genes and “Property” the dissemination of information will slow down, causing harm to humankind. One more major concern is the impact on healthcare. Patents will lead to companies monopolizing tests and treatments and charging lots of money for a simple genetic test.

In reply to this, many people in the biotech industry as well as the scientific community claim that instead of limiting knowledge, patents actually ensure it. It enables quick dissemination of knowledge and preservation of exclusive rights of a patent holder to his invention. The alternative would be worse, if there are no patents. John Doll explains there would be less investment in biotechnology, DNA research and scientists may not disclose the new DNA to the public, issuance of patents ultimately leads to dissemination of information. Patenting promotes research and development and provides an opportunity for Investment. They claim that patents have limited scope and they are not blanket rights over the gene's existence.

Conclusion

While concluding it, I would like to say that the debate over Gene patents is never ending, on one hand the intellectual property right drive innovation, funds for research and bring revolutionary treatments to the public on other hand there are concerns about the potential overreach, monopolization and moral discomfort of it, rather than choosing a side, the law should aim at balancing and equilibrium. It should allow patents while ensuring transparency, ethical review and public accessibility. As per the UNESCO declaration Human Genome is the heritage of humanity; no one should own life, but should definitely find ways to shape it up.

Closing Credits

Author: Yashvi Shukla

"The views expressed are personal. This article is intended for educational purposes

and public discourse. Feedback and constructive criticism are welcome!"