[Ip-health] The New York Times. Re:framing: A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

[Rosa Castro]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
The New York Times
  Re:framing
  A Challenge to Gene Theory, a Tougher Look at Biotech

  Full article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/business/yourmoney/01frame.html?ex=3D1340=
942400&en=3De8a6202e0162538f&ei=3D5088&partner=3Drssnyt&emc=3Drss

  Last month, a consortium of scientists published findings that challenge =
the traditional view of how genes function....To their surprise, researcher=
s found that the human genome might not be a =93tidy collection of independ=
ent genes=94 after all, with each sequence of DNA linked to a single functi=
on, such as a predisposition to diabetes or heart disease.

  Innovation begets risk, almost by definition. When something is truly new=
, only so much can be predicted about how it will play out. Proponents of a=
 discovery often see and believe only in the benefits it will deliver. But =
when it comes to innovations in food and medicine, belief can be dangerous.=
 Often, new information is discovered that invalidates the principles =97 t=
hus the claims of benefit and, sometimes, safety =97 on which proponents ha=
ve built their products.

  The scientists who invented recombinant DNA in 1973 built their innovatio=
n on this mechanistic, =93one gene, one protein=94 principle.

  Because donor genes could be associated with specific functions, with dis=
crete properties and clear boundaries, scientists then believed that a gene=
 from any organism could fit neatly and predictably into a larger design =
=97 one that products and companies could be built around, and that could b=
e protected by intellectual-property laws.
  This presumption, now disputed, is what one molecular biologist calls =93=
the industrial gene.=94

  In the context of the consortium=92s findings, this definition now raises=
 some fundamental questions about the defensibility of those patents...If g=
enes are only one component of how a genome functions, for example, will in=
fringement claims be subject to dispute when another crucial component of t=
he network is claimed by someone else?

  =93The genome is enormously complex, and the only thing we can say about =
it with certainty is how much more we have left to learn,=94 wrote Barbara =
A. Caulfield, executive vice president and general counsel at the biotech p=
ioneer Affymetrix, in a 2002 article on Law.com called =93Why We Hate Gene =
Patents.=94

  Even more important than patent laws are safety issues raised by the cons=
ortium=92s findings. Evidence of a networked genome shatters the scientific=
 basis for virtually every official risk assessment of today=92s commercial=
 biotech products, from genetically engineered crops to pharmaceuticals.

  Now that the consortium=92s findings have cast the validity of that theor=
y into question, it may be time for the biotech industry to re-examine the =
more subtle effects of its products, and to share what it knows about them =
with regulators and other scientists.




Rosa Castro B.
European Doctorate in Law and Economics. Bologna University.
Visiting Scholar (2006-2007). Erasmus Rotterdam University.
Kamer W-L5-070
Postbus 1738
3000 DR Rotterdam
The Netherlands

Tel: +31 10 4082754
Fax: +31 10 4089191
 __________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam =A1gratis!
Reg=EDstrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/