Bloody hell. It always comes down to money. There needs to be a serious overhaul of the economic system in this country. Certain professions and jobs should be paid by the government so the business aspect of it doesn't interfere, especially when it comes to the fundamentals of life, like genes.

I'll just patent grass I guess. And oxygen, and water. Hell I want the patent for earth and the sun also.

This is a question of social responsibility, a concept which anyone that's ever taken a business ethics class is familiar. Basically, the same type of arguments were made when people started suing companies for polluting local waterways with industrial waste. In the long run, I think we can all agree that modern legislation that prohibits companies from harming communities is a positive thing. Patenting genes is a similar problem, since the community is at higher risk without access to the findings of this research. Universities and other medical research institutions will still study genetics, just as paper mills that aren't allowed to dump their waste into rivers anymore still make paper.

THIS. Not just a great science book, but fantastic in terms of history and a human story.

See I'd be inclined to say monetary gain is a good enough incentive, except corporations are assholes and every time we trust them with this sort of thing we wake up later with several dozen knives in our backs. Medicine companies in particular are rather large culprits of this in the USA. With privatized healthcare and a strong lobbying presence to keep it that way, drugs are insanely expensive. We all heard about that one douchebag who took a drug necessary for survival in HIV patients and jacked up the price by like 500% or however much it was cause he knew he'd get away with it and didn't give a damn about the greater good. So no, I don't think allowing the private sector to control this research is beneficial to society, not until a shitton of regulations and anti-corruption measures are passed and enforced to get rid of the corrupt oligarchy of corporations controlling things right now for their benefit. They can't be trusted, and they don't have any right wielding this sort of power

One word: COLABORATION!!!

"Competition" is wonderful in the scientific community. Replication of experiments and other party's research very often fuels the new discoveries.

A lot of people obviously don't understand a few points: 1. Profit is not a bonus, it's a necessity. Without profit, you don't get investors and science is expensive so you need those. 2. If your research is not patented, it's unprotected and you can lose most, if not all, of your profits. 3. This is exactly why patents were made. 4. To solve the issue you need an ALTERNATIVE to patents for these cases. Not just to get rid of them. Understand?

Just no No patents, maybe make sure they get credit but no. We do not need to bring the corrupt world of patents and copyrights to things that we already have. I guess I might as well copyright the air and make everyone pay me $10 a day that way they can breathe.

in science only collaboration and sharing prevails. too many examples of scientific breaktroughs that one scientist did not achieve but thanks to the open nature others stepped in and did find solutions. corporations apparently do not understand the social significance of this sharing and purely out of a misguided postive thinking that putting lets say five scientists would give the same result as a different combination of five scientists. by exluding possible key figures that have that insight or moments of clarity for the job at hand they severely limit progress. we have seen this happen hundreds of years ago and science was a slow progress. it accelerated when information became shared. I understand the corporations too. if they allow an open competition in getting lets say an actual patent on a cure, they can lose everything when opposition beats them to it with maybe even a better drug then they were developing. Huge risks. Then again there is literally no industry that milks the cow called society then medicine corporations.

It's not the research that gets you sued, it's the patenting of this research that prevents anyone from expanding on your research. Science like this should NEVER be privatized, because companies like Myriad take this helpful knowledge and put a profit motive into it to prevent it being put to use.

As someone who experienced cardiac arrest 3 times before I was diagnosed with Long QT we need the best testing available for this. If patents are getting in the way of new tests I say "hands off my genes"

This genetic information should be shared so that the entire scientific community can benefit. Also I find it ridiculous that people can patent genes, something that is part of nature and that nobody has control over. I hope one day this ridiculous trend of patenting genes ends so human knowledge can expand with the cooperation of all the scientific community.

This was Michael's best video yet - great job guest hosting!

The thing about scientific research is it's not just a question of appropriate funding. It's often a case of the right mind on the right task at the right time. That means wide spread data and experimentation.

I don't know about cancer, but I had a bioethics professor where this EXACT scenario happened in the lab where she worked (it's why she left research and went into bioethics). She wasn't legally allowed to tell us WHAT disease, but this definitely happens.

There's a bridge here that needs to be crossed. We don't need to patent genes, but we DO need patents for genetic research. What should be done is simple, and obvious. Instead of patenting genes, you patent specific manipulations of specific genes, and you patent the results of the research, which could include gene therapy in both humans AND bacteria. (bacteria that mass-produce various chemicals the body needs as treatment for patients with genetic disorders causing deficiencies for instance)

kinda seems like a shakedown "so you dont want to pay to use the patented genes huh? be a shame if something were to happen to your research." *lawsuit ensues*

You can patent them at first, but after the first patent runs out you may NOT apply for another one for anything directly related to that gene (to prevent tiny alterations just for a renewal). This provides open information after a short period, during which the company can make plenty of money and do plenty of things.

It seems like 18,000 scientists working on one gene is unheard of. The fact that they patented the gene means that it truly is getting more attention than any other. I do think that, like novel drugs, that the patent on genes should expire after a certain number of years. More importantly, the patent should not disallow another company or university from doing their own foundational research. Nobody has to share. But, more than one entity should be able to sequence the same gene and study it.

The purpose of patents is to protect something you create. Patenting a gene would be like a company deciding to patent water. Those genes (and all genes) have been in existence long before they were "discovered".

Collaboration and sharing is a better option in my view. Because of such patents, the good of humanity is no longer the priority, but the monetary incentives that can be gained from science.

For the most part, most basic research is not done by corporations ... they're interested in doing developmental research (something that will give an ROI in short order) ... so I would argue that they can patent THAT, but not the genes themselves, leaving the door open for government funding (through universities) of basic research on genes.

There was a good train of thought I heard on the radio; Patenting the gene = bad. Nobody should own the blanket rights to know everything about something they didn't make, they just discovered its properties. Patenting a process such as "mutating a gene back so it prevents cancer" = good. Incentive to do the research and come up with an end goal that can be patented inspires innovation.

The profit motive is not enough of a reason to pursue any action. True research and innovation is generated from passion.

In the United States, patents on genes have only been granted on isolated gene sequences with known functions, and these patents CANNOT be applied to the naturally occurring genes in humans or any other naturally occurring organism.

If I or someone I love had some rare, bizarre, or life-threatening genetic disorder, I wouldn't want anyone to be in any way impeded in working on it and trying to understand and possibly cure it.

There's just something about Hank being gone that makes the comments suddenly much more intellectual and thoughtful, instead of puns, wars, and comments on Hank's attractiveness.

For the biotech industry, patenting genes is important. It helps the company earn revenue to continue research and increases competition between companies to develop new methods and technology. But patenting human genes that have not been manipulated in any way doesn't seem to me to promote anything new. Knowledge of things like the BRCA genes should be shared, not monopolized.

I say collaborate and share people!!! This research is amazing, without this awesome type of research or wonderful science folk do builds possibilities!!!

It's funny how accurately Michael mimics our main host's mannerisms.

Other ways of funding like what? Government budgets are really really terrible. A lot of people just say patents are terrible but when they want to raise taxes for example to fund more research, that's where they draw the line. Patenting the product of the gene is more or less the same as patenting the product or any metabolite derivatives / proteins that specifically come from them.

Sharing information is always the best way to go.

As someone who has one of the mentioned diseases (Huntington's) in her family, I'm saying that patents have their good sides and their bad sides. While patents allow for money to go into the research funds, I also think that people take advantage of the patents and make it difficult to make progress because of their own greed. Which really isn't fair to the people who have to live with the result. But I'm also not a scientist, so what to I know, right? I could be totally wrong.

well said Bruce Crossan. Knowledge is power, and clearly they want to have ALL of it.

Patents give companies the right to exclude others from making something. It's got nothing to do with sharing data. Other people could readily figure this stuff out long before the patent expires - the problem is doing it legally and putting it into use.

The Economist covered this in this week's issue. You guys covered it better, nicely done.

The monetary incentive to being the first one to understand a gene is that you have a better understanding of it to get some kind of product to market. THEN you get your patent on the product.

collaboration in this case is far superior, keeping that kind of knowledge confined to one company is counter-intuitive for the rest of the scientific world. Not to mention other potential patents that could create even larger issues for future Scientists like myself.

I have a rule of thumb for myself: if it's something that we NEED to live/survive then it should be in the public domain finance by the public (aka gouvernment). If not, than go for it. What fall into amelioration, new gadget or accomodation could be patented. What touch health (some area) and food (some area) should not.

Every great achievement ever accomplished by science was a collaboration. They should not be able to patent the genes, however, applications to these technologies, such as testing methods should be patented. It's like patenting electricity, and saying that everything running on an electrical power source is a violation of the patent.

It has been proven time & time again through history that when scientist share information they can reach a solution to a problem more easily.

I am a Biotechology major, The only closest way we are to "patenting genes" is the methods and processes that go about creating new genes, not the gene it self. Patenting genes is unethical, and companies that want to do it are greedy ass hell.

Seriously, thank you for understanding the patent system. I agree completely. Intellectual property has become ridiculous in lots of ways over time, but the original system still makes sense. We just have to keep true to the original purpose of making sure inventors and artists are treated fairly.

SciShow should talk about Henritta Lacks, who had cancer cells taken from her without consent in the 50's. Her cells kept growing, and are now part of HeLa immortal lines. Her cells are everywhere, and have advanced and keep advancing science. Seriously, go wiki her story and maybe look into the book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Her story is tragic, heartbreaking, and amazing. Despite what she has done for science her family still lives poorly.

Patenting a gene is like patenting a plant you found; just because you found it first doesn't mean you should be the only one allowed to use it. However I do recognize that this research is expensive, and that patents provide some economic incentive. So maybe a compromise of a 3 year patent limit. Hopefully all the people whose potentially life-saving cures are delayed by 3 years will understand.

Patents on naturally occurring genes notwithstanding, the fact that someone can be sued for research that dovetails into genes that a company has the patent on doesn't incentivize research. It actually has the opposite effect, punishing researchers instead of facilitating the sharing of information. What is the point in doing research that might cause you to get sued?

There should be limited restrictions to given incentive but scientists who do not have the patent should be allowed to research and test, but will have to give their results and discoveries in to the patent holder and give them credit

As pro-science as I am, I must say that Myriad has some valid points. The company should not have to share its methods of testing, treatment, data, or anything like that with the general public purely because they spent all their time, money, and resources doing all the research and preparation and tests to validate their findings; however, that should not mean that they should own exclusive rights to study the gene. How can they, considering there are about 7 billion others with access to it?

He meant that companies that patent genes do it for monetary incentives and not for collaborating with scientist to improve human life, they don't want to share and they want to keep all the money that could be made from gene research that result in cures and better understanding of them

I feel that patenting genes is not unlike trying to patent an element. What should be patented is procedure, use, method, and application, not base materials. This is especially the case with any genes that are common to most or all of humanity.

So the short version is (as I understand it) that companies who patented these genes basically feel that if they can't make money from it, then no one is allowed to use them. From what I understand about the concept of the patent, it is designed to protect inventions or intellectual ideas. If I owned a patent on a gene that every human has in their body, does that mean that I now own the rights to all of the proteins that are created by that gene? Is every human alive at risk of a law suit?

I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying there'd be no incentive. It'd actually be counter-productive. Here's why: -Businesses earn money by increasing their share of the market. -If they have a superior product, their market share increases. -However, if everyone has that product, their share stays the same. -On top of this, R&D is hell expensive. So you're helping everyone else, who are freeloading, while you gain nothing. It just needs to be more controlled.

BRCA 1&2 are 'The best understood human genes' according to PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR THE COMPANY WITH THE PATENT (and at that same level ONLY the company with the patent knows anything about these genes, so no one can corroborate these claims) That should be dismissed instantly, since, y'know, they may as well have said, I was given $1000 dollars to say that this company should make money for knowing stuff that everyone should be allowed to know.

While I must agree, as much as I hate to, that money is essential to the process of further developing science and technology; I don't, however, believe the same to be true of patents. The ideal use for patents, as I see it, is to give the "little guy" a fighting chance in what would otherwise be something like a fight between a heavy weight champion and a toddler who just spotted something shinny in the corner of the ring. It seem to me, however, that all too often large corporations use patents as a means, not to outpace the competition, but simply to secure their lead by ensure that no one else can possibly follow. In summary, I fail to see how patents are essential to a corporations end-goal of making money when all they really need to do is produce better results than the next guy. Patents seem to be less about producing better results and more about making sure that no one else can. Of course, all of this is based purely on personal observations and conjectures and not on any kind of- well anything substantial at all really, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that patents do more harm than good and am not a fan of how they are being used these days.

Without patents, if you create a better product anyone can legally steal your design, produce it, and keep all the money for themselves. Sure patents create something resembling a "monopoly," but they're originally meant to create "monopolies" with defined time and scope limits, in order to make sure the people who actual invest time in developing new designs are fairly rewarded. The problem is patents with ridiculously large scope, not the patent system itself.

this is just scary. when the patent prevents treatment, or makes treatment cost-prohibitive, there is a problem.

I think the best way is to limit the rights of patent holders. For example, specify that having the patent entitles the owner to 20% of whatever earnings. So we don't have to waste time in court. If you find someone making money off of your IP, ask for the money. Only if they won't give it, send the case to court. IP court cases are a waste of resources.

In my opinion, as I understand Patents, you can patent a mechanism or procedure that you create. You cannot patent something you find. So one should not patent a gene, but one can patent the procedure for testing for the gene or a machine for fabricating a gene.

Unfortunately, there's a long complicated legal history to the ownership of one's body parts after they have been removed consensually. Traditionally, once it's out of you you legally don't own it any more. If you did, the problem is that you'd be putting a value on body parts and encouraging monetizing organs and genes.

I can understand why discoverers of genes might want a monetary reward or a head start on research, but I don't think patents are the way to go. If it costs $3,000 dollars to consult these people about your odds of getting cancer, not everyone will be able to consult them. In the end, this might mean a lot of deaths from cancer that could have been prevented or caught early, and it will definitely mean fewer research opportunities than there would have been without the price tag.

The patent system, as it's now evolved, has two purposes: 1. For large companies to struggle with each other for a monopoly position, and 2. for large companies to crush smaller companies. They don't have to win a lawsuit to bankrupt an opponent. It' worth listening to episode 441 of This American Life (a dot org) if you want to get boiling mad:

Knowledge should always be shared through out.

I think the patenting of the human genome can help society if large companies don't prevent the sharing of useful information, and don't over use their information for monetary gain...

i think that companies that patent genes should be able to give out licences to scientists who want to do research on that particular gene, so if some sort of test or drug is formed both the company and the scientists who discovered it can benefit.

I can accept short-term patents on stuff like this; it DOES encourage science. If there is no incentive to quickly discover these genes (you don't get to study it if you don't find it first), scientists can be lax about finding them and just wait until someone does find it and work from there. However, the patent should only last long enough to give the discoverers a head start, not a monopoly. Otherwise, the scientists working on the gene will become lax.

Why can't they develop a new "system" for scientific/technological advances like these? Instead of "If you use these discoveries in any way, you pay us money", make it "You can use these data and discoveries for free on research, but if you try to monetize it, or monetize the results of your research that use our discoveries, you need go give us a cut." And then put a length of time on how long after the discovery this "patent" is in force.

monetary incentive is for those that can afford it. Collaboration will always yield better results in the long run. More minds = bigger and better progress,

The problem with patents isn't the effect it has on science or any industry; the problem is the threat of violence if you attempt to disagree with the patent holder. If you skip over the moral question, then the debate is pretty much meaningless.

Just saying, micheal aranda is probably one of the most fun names to say

You're mixing things up here. First Monsanto has patents on specific breeds of food crops that they've worked hard to create. All seed producers do. The reason Monsanto is news worthy is that they're aggressively suing farmers for patent infringement for circumstances out of their control. For instance if Monsanto corn from farmer A's field pollinates part of farmer B's field, Monsanto sues farmer B for patent infringement.

It is simple, Genes should be like words, free for everyone to use. However when you write a poem or story the work should be protected.

I disagree with their saying monetary incentives are the primary incentive for research in science. With our new information age, it's easier for scientists to collaborate and research new ideas, and most of that is driven by curiosity and a desire to discover something new.

One of the key parts of science is sharing information... what ever happened to curiosity and the freedom to discover? Why must everything be about money?

Information about illnesses and. Diseases should be free to know by everyone

Not being allowed to research my genes because they're patented is like not being able to cut my hair cause some tech company has patented hair or some key component to hair. It's MY hair, MY genes. It isn't like a CD player or a book where someone(s) had to create them and put them together, they're the product of evolution, natural and they're OURS. If someone artificially creates a gene not found in nature, sure, but other than than NO. Me, my body, its DNA included, aren't for others to own.

Holding a patent or copyright to specifically disallow any chance of competition should be allowed to happen (but still is. One of the major reasons healthcare is so expensive.) If such a thing really must exist, then at the very least a strictly limited timeline in which the company can take advantage. :(

Patents should apply on the applications and medicines based on this research and not on the information gained by it. It stimulates research outside of the company by other researches, but still allows companies to gain profit from the applications.

Other industries are starting to realize brilliant, gifted, and talented people are incentivized by money. They work for a vision. It's the companies that hire them that want the money.

Collaboration is definitely more beneficial to further our advances in medicine. Money should be the last incentive not the first.

Tough call. Perhaps a time limit on the patent would be the best solution? Then companies would still be motivated to invest in the medium term, and once the research was done and people wanted access to the results, the patent would wear off, releasing the information to benefit mankind.

True, but if the patent suits get resolved in favor of the defendants, it will likely discourage future suits as precedents are set indicating favoring gene patent holders. This whole issue is wierd and convoluted so I'm not sure where I stand on it personally.

The obvious solution is to allow patents on the individual processes and procedures arising from genetic research--which we do--while not allowing companies to patent things they didn't invent and can't manufacture--which we used to do. The whole patent system went to hell when it was no longer funded by tax dollars and had to start making its money from accepting patents, so they basically started accepting any patent for anything that wasn't already patented.

Legally, the argument is that the amount of effort exerted in genetics research makes naturally occurring mutations. This was all fought out in court decades ago, when a man had his spleen removed and then the doctor monetized his spleen and didn't give him a dime.

I'm just gonna say, the prior art is around three million years old, usually older. Regardless of the monetary incentive argument, patents don't protect centuries-old work, to say nothing of things nature did thousands of centuries earlier.

It's a non-economic issue however. It's not the economy's job to cater for these issues. It's policy. If the economy is to become involved, it's the government's responsibility to do so by making it profitable. Also, the second statement is unlikely to happen. The two companies would strike a deal. Consider that royalties would essentially "cancel out".

I think removing the patents is the best way forward as it would allow research from various labs with different veiw techniques and skills allowing for different research this could lead to break throughs that would save lives, if these companies really cared about anything more than lining their pockets they would open up these genes for everyone to research.

I just patented hair. I'm not saying everyone who has hair has to pay me, but you need my explicit written permission to comb\cut\dye your hair. Failing to do so will get you a $1 fine, per act, per day ($3 a day MAX).

No, because that isn't information. That is a physical product created through the blending of specific ingredients in a specific way. Yes, you can represent those ingredients and those processes with information, but the information itself isn't what's being marketed or even patented, it's the product.

A lot of people get very heated on the subject of patenting before thinking about it. I'm personally opposed to some of the heavy duty patenting that happens, but you can't say "No! No money can be made from it!" Well, money means eating. It's easy to say that it's wrong to make money from something but at the end of the day, there's bills to be paid and you can't be a cancer researcher paying bills by working at McDonald's on the side. That said, the model is completely flawed for patenting.

Well, they claim it provides incentive for further study, but if that study can be used to benefit those outside the company, then it isn't right.

I think that as long as the patent expires like it does for drug companies its a good idea. It gives incentive to be the first to decode or understand specific genes plus a monetary reward for several years... but after that it should have to be shared. Just like when new drugs come out they are only available by the brand name company until the patent expires and other companies are allowed to make generics.

Although I understand the idea of giving people incentive to study something important, the fact that it makes it difficult for some people to get treatment defeats the purpose of studying it in the first place. Also, I just can't believe people are allowed to patent something found in nature. Patents should be for inventions, not discoveries.

Science shouldn't be using the same financial system as commercial companies. Commercial companies aren't necessarily furthering mankind, while science's whole purpose is to specifically further mankind through understanding.

People who value innovation will reward innovation. People who don't value innovation won't reward innovation. If you don't want people using "your" idea, shut up and keep it to yourself. " If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me." -- Thomas Jefferson

Patents are for Ideas, Processes and Mechanisms. In short, Patents are for things that a created. For example, if there is a process that can test for breast cancer, i can understand patenting that, but to patent the gene itself would be like a botanist patenting leaves just because he found discovered something about them.

I'm not sure we're on the same page. I agree that it's better to go to the company with a monopoly while they have it; if no one else understands the problem, then no one else has a solution. But if the patent weren't in the way, then a well-informed, competent scientist could provide a good alternative. As it stands, patients should go to the only company who can provide a real solution. But, ideally, there should be more than one competent company to choose from.

If the argument for why someone should be able to patent something has nothing to do with them inventing it, then it's not a good enough reason.

Knowledge about the human body HAS to be free for everyone. Gene patents are another example of how insane patent laws can be and how damaging it is for the development of the human race.

Patent the data for the genes may provide obstacles for researchers who don't own the patent, but may provide good incentives (often monetary) for scientist who work under the company to develop products and treatments that benefits humanity. The dilemma here is that: is it better for few greatly motivated and resourceful individuals to work on the project or the entire science community to work together as a whole?