Genes are not Exclusive Human: Can not be Patented

GENES ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE HUMAN: CAN NOT BE PATENTED
H.K.Goswami

Genes are being cloned and patented which amounts to copyright of human genes, their forms and functions. Many chromosomes have several patented loci and within a decade or so, we shall have entire chromosomes patented. Hereunder this is argued, that the genes “cloned” and patented, are not exclusively human; exact copies of these genes (DNA sequences) are also present in other organisms. This has been aptly demonstrated by now, that human X and Y chromosomes and other chromosomes too, have evolved by sharing and transferring DNA sequences at various stages of evolutionary steps from diversified groups of organisms. Patent for a gene can not amount to patent of that gene present in other organisms; this needs serious review.
Apart from this, the patented gene is a chemical copy/pirated gene of the original gene present in a chromosome. How can a copy of the gene ( man made) in the laboratory lead to patenting of an original gene present in a chromosome ? This may be a violation of legal, scientific, as well as ethical values. Technically, the genes owned in test tubes can not hold patent for the genes / chromosome domains in situ, because these are not exactly the same.

Biologists, ethicists and judges need to form a common platform to discuss on the speedy wave of patenting human genes because the US Patent and Trademark Office had issued patents to corporations, universities, government agencies and nonprofit groups for nearly 20% human genome [ 1]. About 50% of the cancer genes have been patented and to emphasize on facts nearly 15% genes stored in the National Center for Biotechnology Information ‘s database are tagged with at least one patent. To day we are questioning “ how can you patent my genes” and after a decade or so, whole chromosomes and then, human species as an organism [ 2 ] be a patented organism.

All whatever is happening in this kind of scientifically advancing technological race is gradually becoming unethically - scientific. Discoveries can not, but inventions ( man made ) can be patented!. The year 2005 was marked the 25th anniversary of the landmark court decision that opened a floodgate of patenting on both DNA and even whole organism. In certain countries like USA, ethical issues about patenting life have not been taken seriously but these have to generate great concern in many nations. After all how can you patent a gene in a chromosome which is not man made ? [ 3 ]. A gene that has been cloned, is a “chemical photocopy”/ or a pirated copy of the original gene. So a gene in the test tube can be patented but the right for “owning the gene in form and function” of the original gene present inside the cell on account of patenting would be a totally unqualified claim or gross mis interpretation of the scientific discoveries.

The concept of patenting, may hold good for a plant and or animal product whose sale or benefits of which are in public interest and the product to be marketed would need huge monetary investments by the inventor or any manufacturing unit. The product has to be utilized by people and in order to avoid unauthorized duplicacy, patenting of products obtains acceptable restrictions. In this process the inventor or a group of investigators are also recipients of benefits. In other words monetary profits could be distributed among many owners or shared by patent holder. Similarly, patenting gene products also appears justified because then only useful products, enzymes, medicines and many life saving drugs can be produced and sold in the world market by authorized companies. This has been argued that unless they have patent (s) in their favour it would be huge expense with a lot of risk involved to install a big manufacturing unit because others would copy down soon depriving the inventor and related beneficiaries from major profits.
Arguments are both in favour as well as against the patenting concept but the greatest worry faces all human beings world over is that we are stretching these approaches too far. In this context, American courts have given a dictum “Any thing man made can be patented” [ 1 ] but we have started interpreting or claiming “patenting genes in chromosomes”. Furthermore those who have obtained patents may claim that the candidate gene in the chromosome ( gene locus )has also been patented. This brings unhappy situation for all human beings. For example, a gene that makes the protein that the hepatitis A virus uses to attach to cells, has been patented by US Deptt of health; similarly a gene that plays a key role in spinal cord development is owned by Harvard University group.
The ethics of the Judicial Judgment ( order ) was to enhance the ingenuity of human mind but not to claim the copy rights on different parts and functions of human body. Above all is the argument that the genes in the “test tube”( cloned chemical sequences ) are not exactly the same as is being patented. Cloned genes are not exactly present on a chromosome [3 ]. Furthermore, the“ gene-environ” in a chromosome is different from the copy of the gene patented. This amounts to a serious legal blunder!. Not on ethical values, but on very sound judicial grounds a second thought be given and debated as to how can a cloned and patented gene in the laboratory own a copy right for the original gene in a chromosome?.
Additionally, hereunder, we also examine that a cloned gene (specific DNA sequence ) from human genome is also present in various other related and far more distinct organisms [4 ] thereby offering non- ending complications of biological nature.
A large number of DNA sequences are being reported to have been conserved in various divergent animal phyla, many of the genes retaining the same function[ 5 ] in humans. There are also a large number of DNA sequences known to have strict homology, but for quite different functions. For example in Drosophila melanogaster patched mutations are known to cause faulty winged veins and the human version of this PTC gene results in defective ribs as well as skin cancer. This gene is mapped on the long arm of human chromosome 9, very near the site where genetic linkage studies have shown the presence of gene for basal cell nevus syndrome.

Another such example where a normal gene in fruit fly causes cancer in other organisms is wntl gene which in fruit fly, functions as wingless gene, while it causes mammary tumour in human on becoming overactive. Also a human GLI gene which was discovered as an oncogene in a rare human brain tumour is now known to be the counterpart of the Cubitus interruptus gene of the fly [6 ]. Lately, this is becoming very clear that humans other mammals and also other organism have their own versions of genes found in many organisms. For example, vertebrate homologues of hh and ptc have been identified in mice, chicken and Zebra fish. In humans these genes have important roles in organizing many tissues including neural tube, skeleton, limbs, cranofacial structures and skin. We have strong evidences to assume that conserved sequences can be found in diversified and apparently unrelated phyla but the functions performed in that organism by that very gene need not be the same.

Recently,our results on genomic DNA sequences from a lower vascular plant taxon , Isoetes pantii , compared with human genomic DNA by NCBI Blast Gene Bank public data base have opened up a new line of thinking ( 4, and earlier ). The most remarkable point of argument is that a DNA sequence/ stretch of a gene may be, very rarely though, found in a totally unrelated species without any evolutionary significance . The important point of argument is that a DNA stretch of a gene may be, very rarely though, found in a totally unrelated species without any evolutionary significance. Indisputably this is a truthful legacy of evolution with no obligation on lineages/ relationships.
This can be emphasized here that higher percentage of concordance in the DNA sequences of a few genes among some plants and animals including man, may account for geological persistence of certain DNA stretches/versions of genes (? conserved through billions of years probably due to random distribution ). These DNA sequences must have been lodged as integral part of subgene pools much before the divergence of plants and animals ( in the Pre- Cambrian to Cambrian 500 to 600 billion yrs ago; [ 7].
The genomes are elastic from evolutionary point of view and have phylogenetically traveled through millions of years and spread over among diversified organisms world over at all times since the advent of life on the earth. Certainly therefore, a gene, present in one organism at one chromosome domain may be present for the different or related similar function at a different domain in another organism, and thus in no way is an exclusive, “bonafide resident” within/ of that organism.

To be very precise and more pragmatic, even one or more human chromosomes, for instance, human Y chromosome has been tailored in evolution from tit bits of several sequences and congregated in to one unit chromosome representing according to David Page and his colleagues [8] a mosaic of DNA sequences bearing homology to many organisms. This also implies, as also very explicitly demonstrated by modern molecular biological techniques that a gene functions in one way in one organism and does have different function in another with differences in positions at different chromosomes [9 ] Also, a single gene may have many functions [10], pleiotropic in nature. Indisputedly, neither a gene nor any gene function can be patented. Because, a human gene specifically is not “exclusive human” but belongs to many organisms. The multiple patenting is improbable and unscientific.
The worry is for tomorrow; someone having patented, say “ gene A” present in Drosophila or an aquatic weed, is also present in humans and performs function of producing a remedial protein, would claim “property rights on three different products” because he or she has cloned and patented “ man made” chemical copy of the gene present in chromosomes of three different organisms.
Therefore, cloned genes patented in the test tube do not account for genes in situ . Practically, no gene or its function and or any chromosomal domain can be patented; only the product of a gene at a specific point of origin and locus can be and should be patented subject to “use in public interest”.