GENES ARE NOT EXCLUSIVE HUMAN: CAN NOT BE PATENTED

Sponsored Links

H.K.Goswami

Genes are becoming cloned and patented which amounts to copyright of human genes, their forms and functions. A lot of chromosomes have numerous patented loci and inside a decade or so, we shall have entire chromosomes patented. Hereunder this is argued, that the genes “cloned” and patented, are not exclusively human precise 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 a variety of stages of evolutionary actions from diversified groups of organisms. Patent for a gene can not quantity to patent of that gene present in other organisms this needs significant 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 produced) in the laboratory lead to patenting of an original gene present in a chromosome ? This may possibly be a violation of legal, scientific, as nicely as ethical values. Technically, the genes owned in test tubes can not hold patent for the genes / chromosome domains in situ, due to the fact these are not precisely the very same.

Biologists, ethicists and judges require to form a common platform to discuss on the speedy wave of patenting human genes simply because the US Patent and Trademark Office had issued patents to corporations, universities, government agencies and nonprofit groups for practically 20% human genome [ 1]. About 50% of the cancer genes have been patented and to emphasize on facts practically 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 following a decade or so, entire chromosomes and then, human species as an organism [ 2 ] be a patented organism.

All whatever is happening in this type 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 entire organism. In particular countries like USA, ethical problems about patenting life have not been taken seriously but these have to generate excellent concern in a lot of nations. Right after all how can you patent a gene in a chromosome which is not man produced ? [ 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 appropriate for “owning the gene in form and function” of the original gene present inside the cell on account of patenting would be a completely unqualified claim or gross mis interpretation of the scientific discoveries.

The idea of patenting, may possibly hold great for a plant and or animal item whose sale or benefits of which are in public interest and the item to be marketed would need enormous monetary investments by the inventor or any manufacturing unit. The product has to be utilized by folks and in order to steer clear of unauthorized duplicacy, patenting of items obtains acceptable restrictions. In this method the inventor or a group of investigators are also recipients of advantages. In other words monetary profits could be distributed among numerous owners or shared by patent holder. Similarly, patenting gene products also appears justified because then only valuable merchandise, enzymes, medicines and many life saving drugs can be produced and sold in the world marketplace by authorized organizations. This has been argued that unless they have patent (s) in their favour it would be massive expense with a lot of risk involved to install a huge manufacturing unit simply because other people would copy down soon depriving the inventor and related beneficiaries from significant profits.

Arguments are both in favour as properly as against the patenting concept but the greatest be concerned 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 issue man created can be patented” [ 1 ] but we have started interpreting or claiming “patenting genes in chromosomes”. Furthermore those who have obtained patents could 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 improve the ingenuity of human mind but not to claim the copy rights on distinct parts and functions of human body. Above all is the argument that the genes in the “test tube”( cloned chemical sequences ) are not specifically the very same as is becoming patented. Cloned genes are not precisely present on a chromosome [three ]. Furthermore, the“ gene-environ” in a chromosome is distinct from the copy of the gene patented. This amounts to a significant legal blunder!. Not on ethical values, but on quite 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 correct for the original gene in a chromosome?.

Additionally, hereunder, we also examine that a cloned gene (particular DNA sequence ) from human genome is also present in different other related and far far more distinct organisms [4 ] thereby offering non- ending complications of biological nature.

A big number of DNA sequences are becoming reported to have been conserved in a variety of divergent animal phyla, many of the genes retaining the same function[ five ] in humans. There are also a huge number of DNA sequences recognized to have strict homology, but for rather various functions. For example in Drosophila melanogaster patched mutations are known to trigger faulty winged veins and the human version of this PTC gene outcomes in defective ribs as properly as skin cancer. This gene is mapped on the lengthy arm of human chromosome 9, really near the internet site where genetic linkage studies have shown the presence of gene for basal cell nevus syndrome.

Another such example where a regular gene in fruit fly causes cancer in other organisms is wntl gene which in fruit fly, functions as wingless gene, whilst 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 quite clear that humans other mammals and also other organism have their own versions of genes discovered in a lot of organisms. For example, vertebrate homologues of hh and ptc have been identified in mice, chicken and Zebra fish. In humans these genes have essential roles in organizing several tissues such as neural tube, skeleton, limbs, cranofacial structures and skin. We have powerful evidences to assume that conserved sequences can be discovered in diversified and apparently unrelated phyla but the functions performed in that organism by that quite gene need not be the same.

Lately,our outcomes 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 could be, really rarely though, discovered in a completely unrelated species with out any evolutionary significance . The crucial point of argument is that a DNA stretch of a gene could be, quite rarely although, found in a totally unrelated species with out any evolutionary significance. Indisputably this is a truthful legacy of evolution with no obligation on lineages/ relationships.

This can be emphasized here that greater percentage of concordance in the DNA sequences of a couple of genes among some plants and animals including man, might account for geological persistence of particular DNA stretches/versions of genes (? conserved by way of billions of years probably due to random distribution ). These DNA sequences must have been lodged as integral component 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 via millions of years and spread over among diversified organisms world over at all times since the advent of life on the earth. Undoubtedly therefore, a gene, present in one organism at one chromosome domain might be present for the different or related comparable function at a distinct domain in yet another organism, and therefore in no way is an exclusive, “bonafide resident” within/ of that organism.

To be very precise and much more pragmatic, even 1 or more human chromosomes, for instance, human Y chromosome has been tailored in evolution from tit bits of a number of sequences and congregated in to 1 unit chromosome representing according to David Page and his colleagues [8] a mosaic of DNA sequences bearing homology to a lot of organisms. This also implies, as also quite explicitly demonstrated by contemporary molecular biological tactics that a gene functions in 1 way in one organism and does have distinct function in one more with differences in positions at diverse chromosomes [9 ] Also, a single gene might have a lot of functions [10], pleiotropic in nature. Indisputedly, neither a gene nor any gene function can be patented. Simply because, a human gene specifically is not “exclusive human” but belongs to several organisms. The numerous patenting is improbable and unscientific.

The be concerned is for tomorrow somebody 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 3 distinct products” due to the fact he or she has cloned and patented “ man made” chemical copy of the gene present in chromosomes of three different organisms.

Consequently, 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 certain point of origin and locus can be and ought to be patented subject to “use in public interest”.