DNA Sequencing: Capitalizing on Genetics?

DNA sequencing is the process in which the order of the four nucleotide bases is determined in an organism’s genes. By revealing this information, scientists can examine an individual’s DNA and immediately determine information about not only their physical characteristics, but also what diseases or genetic defects may become a problem in the future.

The first strand of human DNA that was mapped in its entirety came in 2003 with the Human Genome Project; a scientific research campaign devoted to identifying every gene in human DNA, determining all the chemical base pairs that make up the strands, improving research processes and technology, and addressing the ethical/legal issues that had begun to evolve.

Since the Human Genome Project, there has been an exponential increase in computer technology that has allowed the price of sequencing to lower. By making it easier to finance and pay for, there has been a huge spike in competition in the field among scientists and doctors.

However, this topic has faced much skepticism and concern in regards to politics, ethics, morality, and religious views since its inception. Opponents of the practice make the point that there is great potential for financial exploitation of patients by insurers, politicians, and employers.

Others also expressed views that having that caliber of technology and ability to pry into one’s medical history and future so easily is too far ahead of our time and resembles a fictional dystopia where the social hierarchy is determined by genetics.

Moreover, there are limitations to its use as a medical tool. Simply knowing that one has a genetic predisposition may not be all that beneficial until serious improvements are made in treatments of the diseases.

And while the fetus almost always carries a negative connotation in issues of public policy, the topic of pre-natal genome sequencing does the unborn no justice. Debates have become centered on whether or not parents should be able to terminate a pregnancy if the child is shown to have a life-threatening disease instilled in his or her genes or even if the child has the right to know about it once born. Not to mention, this issue will be just another political atrocity and extreme source of tension where our two favorite and most reliable political factions will demonstrate their amazing ability to compromise.

I personally believe that decoding DNA can be useful in the medical world, with certain restriction. My only issue with the process involves the inherent financial and legal contradictions. Here’s the problem:

As this scientific industry has grown and the process has become cheaper—over $2.5 billion cheaper to be precise—companies are now trying to capitalize on genomes. Many companies have been seeking out patents to guarantee their rights to use the technology and/or individual genes and exclude others from using or selling them. However, US patent law dictates that for an invention to patentable it must be useful, novel, non-obvious, and have an intended use. More importantly, it must be original. The stipulation that a component of nature cannot be issued a patent is implied because it would not qualify as an invention as much as it would be intellectual property.

Without a well-versed background in law, it is difficult to say whether or not the genes should be issued a patent. While one could argue that the method the DNA sequences are being revealed by, using new decoding machines, is very innovative and therefore constitutes the issuing of a patent, others may then suggest that the firm only patent the technology used, for the resulting DNA is only intellectual property and not something that has just been discovered. This would be a reasonable settlement as it would be entirely appropriate to get a patent-approval on a new machine.

By granting scientific companies patents on genes, it may protect the firm’s investment and also stimulate research by increasing competition. However, it would be unfair to let them monopolize on certain genes so that other scientists must pay them royalties if conducting research on “their” gene. If research costs increase, then costs in biotechnology and pharmaceuticals will increase, directly impacting patients and researchers.

For patients seeking answers about diagnosing a potential disease through genetic sequencing, most would either not be able to go out and get a second opinion or would have to pay a fee if the original company they had themselves tested with had patented the specific gene involved.

This same concept applies to research in the sense that some firms would be discouraged by the obligation to pay royalty fees when looking into a certain gene. It is blatantly counterproductive.

The field of analyzing human DNA for possible health indicators is relatively new, and there should at least be a grace period in which as much scientific data can be gathered before barriers begin to emerge. We also must ask ourselves: Are we ready to facilitate the growth of an industry in which capital gains are acquired because one business owns the rights to a universal building block of life?