A
discussion this week at the British Library on patents in biomedicine raised some interesting questions over whether patents help or hinder science and innovation, and over how well they fit with the academic culture of openness over data.
An expert panel included Professor Alan Ashworth, our Chief Executive here at The Institute of Cancer Research in London, technology transfer specialist Dr Nick Bourne of Cardiff University, Dr Berwyn Clarke who founded the diagnostics company Lab 21, and the event’s chair Professor Jackie Hunter, Chief Executive of the BBSRC.
A lot of discussion was focused on patenting genes and biomarkers, perhaps because of the background of the panellists. Professor Ashworth was a key member of the team who discovered the BRCA2 gene, and Dr Clarke has been involved in companies that have developed commercial biomarkers and diagnostic tests.
Fundamental to this topic is whether isolated DNA should be counted as a natural product or could be classed as an invention, particularly pertinent with
last year’s decision by the US Supreme Court that isolated DNA is no longer eligible for patenting in the US. Professor Ashworth made his views on this clear - as a natural molecule, he felt it is intrinsically wrong to allow patents on isolated DNA. He supported the Supreme Court decision that isolated DNA is no longer eligible for patenting in the US, but commented that society should have reached the same conclusion a long time ago. Dr Bourne made the point that patent law was largely developed in the 70s but that science has moved on a lot since then.
I was surprised that this nature versus invention debate didn’t take up more of the discussion. Much of the evening was focused on intellectual property and patents as commercial incentives. Dr Clarke discussed his experiences in the field of biomarker diagnostics, and how in this era of personalised medicines, increased biomarker testing is essential to make sure the right patients get the right treatment.
He argued that fundamental research was needed to discover relevant biomarkers and develop these tests, and that no company would invest in doing this if someone else could capitalise on the work that you’d done. He felt that patents which provide market exclusivity were essential to protect someone else from cashing in on your research.
But Professor Ashworth made the point that a lot of the research underlying commercial developments is done in academia, and indeed that it’s often the academics who find things out first. The team at the ICR discovered the BRCA2 gene almost simultaneously with Myriad Genetics. It doesn’t take a big commercial enterprise to make important scientific discoveries.
Professor Ashworth made one rather important point several times during the discussions - the question of whether society is well served by patenting biomedical discoveries. Patenting and licensing policies at the ICR are driven by our ambition to achieve the maximum patient benefit from research findings. When it comes to gene patents, we want all DNA sequences to be published and developed in ways that enable multiple parties to research, develop and perform genetic tests or to discover and develop new drugs using genes as targets.
The discussions at the event were pretty broad, and this is just a snapshot of some of the topics covered. At the end I don’t know whether the audience reached any firm conclusions. The title of the event – Inventions and Discoveries in Biomedicine: Patently Obvious? – raised a question. The answer seemed to be an uncertain ‘no’.
comments powered by