By guest blogger Doug Calhoun
In an earlier guest blog I commented on the gene patent debate inAustralia. My conclusion thenwas that the opponents were a determined lot. That observation has been reinforced by yet anotherinitiative in the form of a proposed private member’s bill. This was reported in the ABCprogramme “Lateline” on 14 May. The programme and a transcript are at the
I was sufficiently annoyed at the lack of any balance in the report to respond to theirinvitation to comment. The following is what I said:
Your story on gene patents is unbalanced, it omits several important facts and it repeats adiscredited myth. For the other side of the story I refer you to this post I made on a
The myth is:
“Four thousand human genes have been patented already - that's 20 per cent of thehuman genome.” “Already 4,000 of these genes have been patented by organisations hoping toprofit through exclusive research on them.”
The 4,000 figure is based on one 2005 article in
Science.
(And the patents referred toareUS patents, not Australian ones.) That article has been misinterpreted and its conclusionsmisrepresented. For an in depth analysis of why I refer you
While Dr Oliver may be an eminent physician, his knowledge of patent law does not appear matchhis medical expertise. He stated:
“Look, if you can just get a patent for just discovering the presence of a gene,then you really block everyone else from being able to work on that gene. And so we are saying thatthat's not what patent law should be. It should be about an inventive step, then you can have thepatent.”
The Patents Act requires that a discovery must have a practical usefulness before a patent can begranted. The need for this was reinforced with the passing of the Raising the Bar Act. Thatrequires the patent applicant to show a “substantial, specific and credible” usefulness before apatent is granted. The change and the existing law require far more than “just discovering thepresence of a gene.” An inventive step is yet another requirement that must be present alongwith usefulness before a patent can be granted.
Suzanne Smith expressed an incomplete understanding of how cures get to patients when shestated:
“At stake here is the future of cancer therapies. If an organisation can monopolisea gene, that means the world's scientists can't collaborate and swap their results. This couldpotentially delay a cure for cancer or the invention of a vaccine.”
There is much more to making cures for cancer available than scientists collaborating and findinga potential cure. The initial promising results must go through patient trials to prove that theywork and that they are safe before a cure can be made generally available. And for many new cures,half or more of the patent life may be up before a cure is approved and a patent owner gets anyreturn on their investment. A patent gives exclusivity in respect of a defined invention for amaximum term of 20 years. (A fact nowhere mentioned in your report. The Myriad patent expiresinAustraliain 2015.) After that anyone can use it. The purpose of a patent is to motivateinvestment in taking a promising research result to the medical marketplace. Those who arepromoting the ban on gene patents do not explain what will drive the commercialisation of“targeted therapies in cancer based on genes and their products” if they succeed.
The suggestion that the world’s scientists can’t collaborate and swap their results becauseof the gene patents is simply wrong. Over 8,000 scientific papers have been published on the BRACgenes since the patent was granted. Part of the patent bargain is that the patent document mustfully describe the invention and how to put it into practice.
While interviewers have no control over what their guests have to say, responsible reportersshould at least do rudimentary fact check before making supportive statements like those that SuzannSmith made here. And on the question of balance you might have mentioned that two different senatecommittees and the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property have all considered the case put by DrOliver and Melissa Park; and all have declined to recommend banning gene patents. (See my blogpost linked above for the details.)
And as for the throwaway line that AusBiotech were unable to comment, how much warning were theygiven? It sounds like a cheap producer’s trick to give someone five minutes warning and thenpretend that this equates to balanced reporting.
The reply ABC sent me was:
“Thank youThanks for your message. Your input is important to us.
Please Note: The ABC's Current Affairs department welcomes feedback on its programs. Your emailwill be passed on to those responsible for producing the program. Emails containing general commentsor suggestions and those offering personal opinion will be noted but may not receive a reply. Anyemails relating to complaints concerning accuracy, impartiality and objectivity will be consideredby ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. In this case, please be aware that it may take up to fourweeks for a response to be forwarded. We will not respond to anonymous emails and we are unable tohelp people with research for school projects, student assignments and enquiries unrelated to ourservice.”
I await their response with interest.
~ Doug Calhoun
Serial Stirrer