Transcript Egenis, The First Five Years

Intellectual Property in
Contemporary Biology
John Dupré, Director, Egenis
University of Exeter
Overview


What is the new science of genomics about?
That is, what kinds of things does it tell us
about?
How do changes in our understanding of
biology affect the applicability of traditional
patent laws?
Recent biology has moved from a strongly reductionist mode
Of understanding to an emphasis on complexity, context, and
the necessity of analysing whole systems. This move is most
clearly reflected in the growing investment in Systems Biology.
Intellectual Property regimes, on the other hand, are rooted
most strongly in engineering models and the reductionist
understandings naturally associated with such models.
Systems biology is not easily interpreted as describing
possible commodities.
Intellectual Property



What kinds of genomic objects can be patented?
Actual and attempted patents have included whole
genomes, genes as material substances, and
genomic data in computer-readable forms
Patenting regimes must make assumptions about
the nature of genes and genomes
Intellectual Property, Continued



Patenting of ‘genes’ as ‘compositions of matter’ requires
identification of a specific function. Tends to implicitly
assume a scientifically dubious linear model of gene
function
Patenting genomic information introduces a quite different
conception of the subject matter
Generally, it’s doubtful whether existing patent law is
adequate to the needs of genomics
See J. Calvert (2007), ‘Patenting Genomic Objects’, Science as Culture;
M. A. O'Malley, A. Bostanci, A., and J. Calvert, (2005). Whole-genome patenting. Nature
Reviews Genetics.
Patenting Genes
“ a gene is but a chemical, albeit a complex one”
(Amgen inc. vs. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co.)
Not really: to be a particular gene is to be in a
particular biological context
Genes
DNA (a gene?)  RNA  Protein  Phenotypic trait X
Then the DNA is a gene for X
Almost everything is wrong with this story.



All of these causal steps have multiple possible outcomes
Causation runs in both directions
Therefore whether a stretch of DNA is a gene for X, Y, Z, all
of these, or nothing, depends on the context



General point about biomolecules: countless
possible functions; actual function depends on
relation to rest of cell
Compare also ‘moonlighting’ proteins.
One is not, therefore, patenting a kind of stuff,
which has found to be a gene for, e.g., tumour
suppression, but something which can be a gene
for tumour suppression, but can be many other
things as well.
Genomes are conceived in two very
different ways for different purposes

The genome as information


The genome as a material object


Ancestry tracing; forensic; comparative genomics (function;
phylogeny)
Gene therapy; stem cell science; genomics and agriculture
Both concepts have been extremely valuable, but their
conflation can cause a lot of confusion; they also raise
different issues for intellectual property
See Barry Barnes and John Dupré (in press), Genomes and What to Make of Them
(Chicago University Press).
The Move to Systems Biology
and Synthetic Biology

Both reflect in different ways a perceived
need to get beyond the reductionism of
earlier molecular genetics and deal with
larger more complex systems
Systems Biology

“important…properties come from the operation
of a system and not from the operation of
individual genes…if you want to acquire
intellectual property…you’ve got to patent a
system or a collection of genes” (Interview3. Interviews
were conducted by Dr Jane Calvert.)

But this may result in impeding further research
over a wide area, and thus be a very counterproductive use of Intellectual Property law.
Systems Biology, continued

Apart from attempts to patent molecular
networks, SB patents have also taken form of
computer-based models. These raise issues about
the general patentability of computer software;
but also, by being simplifications of biological
reality and more tractable and predictable,
perhaps better suited to commodification.
Synthetic Biology





“Systems biology in reverse” (interview30)
Clear modelling on engineering and physical
science traditions
‘Biobricks’—standardised, hence interchangeable
components; stabilisation of objects of ownership
Strong ‘open source’ ethos, though this also
involves property rights through source licenses
Craig Venter’s minimal genome
Conclusions

The integrative life sciences suggest two different
paths for IP:


Emergent phenomena inherently unsuitable for
commodification, hence search for new ways of thinking
about appropriation in the life sciences
Reduce complexity and unpredictability to fit better
with existing ownership regimes. Reshape the life
sciences to fit economic necessities.
Work in Egenis on Intellectual
Property
J. Calvert (2007), “Patenting Genomic Objects”, Science as Culture.
M. A. O'Malley, A. Bostanci, A., and J. Calvert, (2005). Whole-genome
patenting. Nature Reviews Genetics 6, 6, 2005, pp. 502-506.
J.Calvert (2004), 'Genomic patenting and the utility requirement', New
Genetics and Society, 23, 3, 2004, pp. 301-312.
S. G. Hughes (2005), 'Navigating genomes: the space in which genes
happen', Tailoring Biotechnologies, 1, pp. 35-46.
Acknowledgements





Thanks to many colleagues at Egenis, and
especially:
Jane Calvert
Maureen O’Malley
Alex Powell
Steve Hughes