Teman-teman, Untuk pemanasan diskusi mengenai hak paten, berikut saya kirimkan sebuah artikel yang menunjukkan bahwa pemberlakuan hak paten atas gen sebenarnya menghambat riset medis. Ini penelitian dari AS, yang saya pikir satu-satunya negara yang memberikan paten atas mahluk hidup/bahan hayati sampai beberapa bulan lalu. Uni Eropa yang sempat menggantungkan keputusan memberikan paten atas mahluk hidup/bahan hayati nampaknya mulai kendor di bawah tekanan AS. Jadi banyak LSM dan kelompok masyarakat menentang hak paten ini atas dua pertimbangan: 1. Kehidupan adalah milik Tuhan dan sangatlah tidak bermoral memberlakukan hak paten atas bahan hayati 2. Pemberlakuan hak paten ini merugikan mereka terutama dalam pertanian dan juga terutama berkaitan dengan kenyataan bahwa pengetahuan mereka dianggap sesuatu milik publik dan bukan milik perorangan. TEtapi ada pula argumentasi ilmiah dan ekonomi. ARgumentasi ekonomi adalah yang digambarkan oleh artikel di bawah ini, yaitu karena riset terhambat, maka ada monopoli atas "gene therapy", dan bila ada monopoly maka harganya mahal. Dari sudut ilmiah, mari kita simak apa yang dikatakan oleh Ananda Chakraborty Mohan, orang pertama yang hasil riset rekayasa genetikanya diberi hak paten atas nama General Electrics (atau MOtors?) oleh kantor Paten AS. (Mohan membuat bakteri yang direkayasa agar dapat memakan tumpahan minyak di laut; di laboratorium eksperimen ini berhasil tetapi ketika diterapkan di lapangan ternyata tidak memuaskan). Dia bilang "I did not create anything new; I just reshuffled the existing genes". Jadi dari segi ilmiah para pelaku rekayasa genetika tidak menciptakan sesuatu yang baru, hanya memindahkan gen. Silakan kalau ada yang mau menanggapi. Salam Hira > Date: Thursday, December 16, 1999 10:38 AM > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Emmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 6:34 PM > Subject: Patents:-Medical Research blocked > > > Rush to patent genes stalls cures for disease : > Gene patents hit research > > > > Julian Borger in Washington > Wednesday December 15, 1999 > > Vital medical research aimed at developing screening methods and cures for > congenital diseases is being stifled by the rush to patent human genes and > the corporate use of those patents to maximise profits. > A poll of American laboratory directors found that a quarter of them had > received letters from lawyers acting for biotechnology companies ordering > them to stop carrying out clinical tests designed to spot early warning > signs for Alzheimer's disease, breast cancer and an array of other > disorders. > > Although the sharpest impact on scientific research has been witnessed in > the US, under World Trade Organisation rules many of the patents are > applicable worldwide. They could inhibit ground-breaking studies in Britain > and other scientific centres. > > So great is the perceived threat to medical research that a group of > American doctors and scientists have issued a protest saying: "The use of > patents or exorbitant licensing fees to prevent physicians and clinical > laboratories from performing genetic tests limits access to medical care, > jeopardises the quality of medical care, and unreasonably raises its cost." > > According to the survey, carried out by researchers in California and > Pennsylvania, half the laboratories questioned said they had stopped work on > developing screening because they knew a patent had been licensed or was > pending. > > Some of the research scientists who pioneered work on isolating and > identifying genetic deformities linked to serious diseases are now saying > the pace of research and the spread of ideas has been stultified by the fear > of being sued by patent licence holders. > > "I've been at conferences where we have been addressed by patent lawyers and > told to stop showing our colleagues our notebooks, or think twice about > submitting an abstract at a meeting," said Jonathan King, a genetic > researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "It's a common > experience at scientific meetings for people to withhold information because > they have a patent pending. Progress is being slowed down." > > The patenting of genes dates from a supreme court ruling in 1980 that > permitted patenting of some organisms found in nature. But the granting of > such patents has only taken off in recent years after a series of > breakthroughs in deciphering genetic codes. > > > The survey of US laboratory directors, which has yet to be published, offers > the strongest evidence so far that the "gene rush" to take out patents on > the human genetic code is beginning to inhibit research designed to turn the > explosive growth in genetic knowledge into practical ways of identifying > inherited disorders and finding cures. > > It emerges at a time when the ethics of patenting living genetic material is > coming under increasing scrutiny. A race is under way to decode the human > genome - the entire biological blueprint that makes up DNA. > > One of the authors of the new survey, Mildred Cho, director of the Stanford > University centre for biomedical ethics, said she was surprised by the hold > the patent lawyers had on genetic testing. > > "It will diminish access to testing," she said. "It will affect quality > because laboratories normally cross-check their samples for quality control. > You can't do that if one laboratory is doing all the testing." > > Laboratories have received letters from a Massachusetts corporation called > Athena Diagnostics informing them that it has "acquired exclusive rights to > certain tests in the diagnosis of late-onset Alzheimer's disease. These > tests are covered under US patent number 5,508,167, a copy of which is > enclosed," the letters said. Testing anywhere else would infringe that > patent, but Athena would be pleased to perform the tests itself for the > published price of $195 per specimen. That is more than twice the price > previously being charged by some university medical laboratories. > > The cost put the test way beyond the researchers operating on government > grants, who need to examine hundreds of samples in the search for new > mutations and possible therapies. > > Another biotech company, Myriad Genetics, has secured exclusive licences > based on patents for the BRCA 1 and BRCA 2 genes, mutations in which are > linked to breast and ovarian cancer. Like Athena it dispatched letters > ordering laboratories to stop screening women for the mutations. > > Arupa Ganguly, a researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who received > one of the letters, said: "In reality this lab has been stopped from testing > for BRCA 1 and BRCA 2." > > Tom Frank, medical director at Myriad, defended the company. It still > allowed testing for purely research purposes, he said, adding that the > company's tests were far more thorough than those carried out by other > laboratories. "It's a little bit disconcerting to license a lab which might > be missing mutations. The tests they were offering were inferior," he said. > > Ms Ganguly, however, said the university tests were accurate and much > cheaper. > > Barbara Weber, a genetics specialist who resigned as a Myriad consultant > earlier this year because of the company's patent policies, said yesterday: > "I felt their interest in making money had completely subsumed their > willingness to be reasonable and collegial." > > > ������������������������������� > Steve Emmott > Advisor-Genetic Engineering > Greens/European Free Alliance Group > European Parliament > 1047 Brussels > > Tel/fax +32 2 284 2026 -= Dual T3 Webhosting on Dual Pentium III 450 - www.indoglobal.com =- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
