The Controversial Ownership of Genetic Innovations
Written on
Chapter 1: The Building Blocks of Life
Humans are composed of tiny molecular units that can be altered and modified in numerous ways. As advancements in DNA technology and genetic engineering continue, these units gain value in unexpected manners. Nature has already modified DNA over time, resulting in significant diversity among species, including our own. Jamie Metzl's book, Hacking Darwin, highlights this phenomenon particularly in the realm of athletics.
A prime example is Eero Antero Mäntyranta, a celebrated Finnish skier who won seven Olympic medals and two world championships between 1960 and 1972. In the 1990s, genetic testing revealed that Mäntyranta and 29 relatives shared a notable mutation in the EPOR gene, enabling them to produce hemoglobin more efficiently. This genetic advantage contributed to their exceptional endurance, complementing their rigorous training.
Similarly, Kenyan long-distance runners have dominated Olympic events for the past three decades, predominantly from the Kalenjin tribe. Although no single gene guarantees marathon success, research suggests that the Kalenjin exhibit traits such as lower body mass relative to height and longer limbs. A 1990 study indicated that 500 Kalenjin children outperformed the top Swedish adult runner in a 2000-meter race. While a strong running culture exists, genetics plays a crucial role as well.
Just as Mäntyranta and the Kalenjin have benefited from advantageous mutations, other individuals possess genetic traits that confer resistance to certain diseases. This raises important questions about ownership of these unique genetic traits. If someone with a rare mutation offers potential financial rewards due to their DNA, do they hold ownership of that genetic code?
Chapter 2: The Legal Landscape of Genetic Ownership
Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty's name might not be widely recognized, but his contributions as a microbiologist have significantly impacted both science and law. Working with General Electric in the late 1960s, Chakrabarty engineered a novel type of bacteria capable of degrading oil. This innovative organism could replicate itself while consuming oil, with the added benefit of being a protein source for marine life.
However, the attempt to patent this living organism sparked controversy. Initially, the Board of Patent Appeals ruled that existing laws did not permit the patenting of living entities. This decision was later overturned, leading to the landmark Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty in 1980, where Chakrabarty ultimately triumphed. The court concluded that his creation was a product of invention, thus allowing General Electric to patent a living organism.
In an article by Michael Specter in the New Yorker, he discusses the peculiar issues arising from the ability to patent life forms, notably focusing on Myriad Genetics. This company holds patents for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are closely linked to breast cancer. The court's ruling established that isolating and purifying genes could lead to ownership claims, allowing Myriad to dictate who could conduct research involving these genes and at what cost.
In 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation sued Myriad Genetics on behalf of several clients, leading to a court ruling that reinforced the notion that natural elements cannot be patented. However, the ruling also confirmed that synthetic life forms can indeed be patented.
Chapter 3: The Business of Your DNA
The company 23andMe has revolutionized genetic testing by offering direct-to-consumer DNA kits. For a price ranging from $100 to $200, customers can send in saliva samples for analysis, significantly cheaper than traditional tests costing up to $1,000. However, the company also monetizes this genetic data by selling it to biotech firms, with the consent of about 80% of its customers.
Nebula Genetics, co-founded by renowned scientist George Church, aims to change this landscape by allowing individuals to retain ownership of their genetic data. By utilizing blockchain technology for protection, Nebula proposes a model where users can rent their DNA data to pharmaceutical companies and receive compensation through a proprietary cryptocurrency.
As we navigate this evolving landscape, the implications of genetic ownership and the financial potential of one's DNA become increasingly relevant. The notion that individuals like Mäntyranta or members of the Kalenjin tribe may one day have the right to profit from their unique genetic makeup is not merely speculative—it's a glimpse into a future where genetic information is both a commodity and a source of personal empowerment.
In conclusion, the intersection of science, law, and personal genetics poses fascinating questions about ownership and value. As technology advances, so too must our understanding of the legal and ethical dimensions of genetic information. Thank you for engaging with this exploration. If you found it insightful, please consider sharing it with others.