Finders, keepers

Now that Disney and Pixar are one (Disney just bought Pixar), I have a suggestion for their premier animated film project – the journey of Carlos and Mickey, a man and a mouse both forced to wear nothing but clothing and paraphernalia that show the logos of companies and institutions that "own" them "inside." Then along the way, they meet other creatures – cats, dogs, worms, chimps, pigs, cows, and even bacteria – which are forced into the same situation. They all come to drink in a bar, become drunk and melodramatic. In a split moment of daring, the ever-emotional human, Carlos, in telenovela fashion, will exclaim: "I cannot be owned!" and the other creatures hush him and say, "Oh yeah, you are covered by patents – all 20 percent of you!" Then, a representative of another company will enter the scene and stamp one more indelible logo on the shirt of Carlos, as the other creatures amend their previous comment, "Hmm, make that 21 percent of you."

Sure, Disney will not hire me as a scriptwriter but if you are as emotional as Carlos, you might be throwing a fit, too, if I tell you that 20 percent of all your 24,000 genes (all the genes that make up a human being) have already been patented by research institutions and corporations (if that is hard to visualize, try making an imaginary chocolate roll of yourself and divide yourself into five parts; one of those five is already owned by institutions.) And that is no fiction – it is fact! The February 2006 issue of the Scientific American laid out all the human chromosomes (1 to 22, X and Y) in graphic illustrations and indicated how many genes each chromosome has and how many US patents already cover each chromosome. Take for example my favored victim – the most impoverished chromosome of them all – the Y (since it has the least number of genes). Out of the 144 genes it has, about 10 percent have already been patented. So gentlemen, 14 of the genes in those puny Ys you distinguish yourselves with are not even yours; they are covered by some seven-digit US patent numbers.

The Scientific American article I am talking about entitled "Owning the Stuff of Life" by Gary Stix was written in such a sober, objective, understated manner that I wonder if I would have written it the same way given the alarming reality it reveals. How could my genes – those that reside in me so intimately – be owned by someone else? When did our genes become like a half-eaten sandwich left on the table that if we do not remember to claim it, it becomes fair game to those who want it? I cannot think of anything more intimately mine than my genes and they are covered in some certificate filed away as the "intellectual property" of some institution. Something tells me that not enough intelligence went into defining genes as "intellectual property." Oh my, did we leave this matter again to lawyers? Leave it to lawyers to decide what is "intellectual" and you get something unintelligible, not to mention, morally indigestible realities like this.

A US court ruling on patents says that these are "isolated and purified" versions of the gene, unadulterated by what scientist calls "junk DNA" which are like "commercials" in genes – they have no apparent "use" (which means they do not code for proteins that are responsible for substances that make humans) and that even if genes are a product of Nature, the process involved in isolating and purifying them is "man-made" and therefore, "patentable." Stix even revealed to us specifics like the fact that the gene involved in spinal cord development is now actually owned by Harvard University and the gene for the receptor of histamine – those responsible for your allergic reactions – is owned by Incyte Corp.

Gene patenting is not only being done with humans. US patents have also been claimed for the genes of other creatures. Stix cited the OncoMouse, which is one of the saddest creatures of all because scientists added a gene to it – the cancer gene – so that they could study it. They give the mouse a terrible disease, which is another very intimate thing, and the mouse cannot even lay claim to itself. But there is hope (in fact in this case, applause) for lawyers at least in Canada. Canada rejected the patent application for the OncoMouse as the judge ruled in effect that the patent applicants should spend less time with humans and more time observing other creatures like the mouse to see if "a composition of matter" (the phrase the applicants used to refer to the mouse) is really an "adequate" description for a "life form" to qualify it for patent coverage. But pushing the bounds of its own audacity, the applicants for the OncoMouse patent even tried to apply not just for the OncoMouse but for other rodents as well in Europe, which the European Patent Office rejected. I really feel for these creatures which simply are, without having the need to figure out and publish in science journals, why their insides do what they do and file patents for it. Can you imagine a firefly in an Armani suit with a briefcase suing humans in court for the unauthorized use of the fireflies’ patent to convert chemical energy to those pretty flashing taillights?

The article says that so far, all this gene patenting has not yet resulted in serious, large-scale hampering of medical research or cure for human patients. However, he says that in the US, it has already begun, especially with diagnostic genes (those genes that serve as "markers" for certain diseases like cancer). Meantime, the US criteria to issue a patent now include the "use" of a gene, which means that unless an applicant has determined the "use" of the gene, no patent can cover it. "Pure, isolated and useful" – what the heck does that mean? In the 1750s, Karl Scheele, a Swedish pharmacist, devised a way of manufacturing phosphorus that made Sweden famous for being the largest producer of matches. He also discovered chlorine as an element and as bleaching power, together with seven other elements, namely fluorine, manganese, barium, molybdenum, tungsten, nitrogen and oxygen. There are very few states that are "purer, isolated and useful" than the elements but Scheele did not file patents for any of them – oxygen or matches; he did not even get credit for any of them! Imagine if he did and this current rule applied, would people then had to pay him every time they breathed? I am sure you will say, of course, not but I am sure some lawyers would have figured out a scheme.

Does this now mean that if I am able to figure out what a certain gene is for (even if that gene has no trouble doing what it does without my having to figure it out), I can apply for a patent to cover it? Suppose I discover the "war gene" – the genetic drive to be aggressive – and I get the patent for it, will I receive letters like this: Dear War Gene patent holder, this is to request use of your patent for the war gene as we wish to manipulate it to drive a __ number of humans to kill __ number of people and destroy __ amount of property. How much royalties would the use of your war patent for __ period of time cost us so we can discuss with our countrymen the costs and benefits of obtaining such a patent? Respectfully yours, __.

I think that if this trend will eventually lead to humans having to pay or ask permission from these patent holders which will deprive or delay cures for their illnesses, something big like China will happen to them. Locally, this could mean that when we go to malls, instead of "dvd, dvd, dvd" offers lurking in the shadows of our shopping experience, we will have genetic pirates mumbling beneath their breaths, three-letter codes of the four-alphabet code of human life: "Ma’am ATC…TGA…CAT."

Finders, keepers – how did such an innocent childhood guide that applied to coins you found on the ground, work its way to become a court ruling on genes – unique to each and everything that lives – human and non-human? I think we should send lawyers away first to biology courses as we examine ourselves, or at least the 80 percent that is yet uncovered by patents. But oh wait, for the 20 percent, I think you will need a lawyer to get you permission. Don’t fret, we have a lot of lawyers to choose from in this country. In fact, too many.

* * *

For comments, e-mail [email protected]