I did a little searching around, and it looks like companies are able to patent natural genes. They don't have to alter them, or build them from scratch; they just have to isolate and purify them (in a "novel" way), and show how the genes could have a "substantial use." The "invention" being patented is essentially the genetic information itself. Usually the publication of a patent allows other inventors to build on an invention, seeing what works and what doesn't, working with other materials, etc. But with gene patents, the publication of the information means that no one else can create products with patented genes for the 20 years that the patent is in effect without paying royalties to the patent holder. That makes some genetic research prohibitively expensive, or even impossible.

The article linked to above begins:

"If you've got at least one kidney, a company called Biogen owns the patent for at least one of your genes. It's called the KIM gene, and the kidney uses it in the process of self-repair.

If you can taste things with your tongue, the University of California own the rights to three more of your genes, called TCP-1, 2 and 3; it's not clear in the patent application what the owners plan to do with their rights to these genes.

And if you have bones that have grown normally since birth, one of the genes that played a role in that normal growth belongs to a company called Sumimo Metal Industries.

As of January 2007, some 20% of the genes that make up human DNA were patented.

Here's a "Beginner's guide to gene patents" from the UK's The Guardian.

Here's a story NPR did on the subject of gene patents about two years ago.

The American Medical Association weighed in on gene patenting, too.

"The reason this is even in question is because they didnt just discover a gene, they isolated it. That had never been done before. I think that patents to help encourage scientist to do more reasearch, but the junk they are doing with the patents is wacked up...do you hear me? WACKED UP. yup. they shouldnt make ppl pay as much money to try to research the gene...that is wrong, and holds back medical research. They were on the right track..they just dont know how to stay there...TT_TT evilness!! getting good medical research and then stopping it..." --Devender

If one agrees with the patenting of genes, then one agrees with the powers the act of patenting a gene gives a person, including have the "right" to own a gene that is in everyone's body and treat it as a product that is owned as he/she gets greedy, etc...

What is shocking is that you can patent something you did not even create. "Isolate" and "found a novel use for" are ridiculous excuses for greed and selfishness. Anyone can "isolate" something or find a "novel" use for something. So, if I find a novel use for some type of food, do I patent it and take that food away from everyone for my self? Finders keepers is a child's game the U.S. government is condoning!

I don't agree with the patenting of any part of nature. I don't care what anyone believes, parts of nature are "the commons"; and, no selfish little finite rat should be allowed take it away for his/herself.

So, if I extract one of my own genes from my own body, that is also found in every other human's body, I can be sued by a researcher, one person, who patented "it." That single researcher can own all of these genes in everyone's bodies. Case in point: the gene that causes breast cancer. Researchers were sued, fined, restricted, etc... from using the gene in search of a cure for BC.

It'll just take us that much longer to find (if, now, we ever find) cures as more unique individuals with great potential are cut off. How many will die waiting (possibly forever)?

Personally, I find this privatization of literally everything utterly disgusting and repulsive. Bottled water companies have even told dirt poor peoples of other countries that they couldn't collect rain water because "they" had the rights to it. What is this world coming to? What is next? I know, but I won't say, as I don't want to give them the idea too soon; but expect it. Whatever it is, they want it.

hello there i agree with you too!

THE PATENT IS A LEGAL PROCESS TO PREVENT OTHERS FROM FREE ACCESS, OR A METHOD TO GAIN PROFITS FOR GENETIC TESTING. THIS IS THE DARK SIDE OF THE RESEARCH PROCESS.

Well, that is actually the opposite of what is happening. Companies are patenting your genes and preventing you from benefiting from the research without a license fee. In an article for the New York Times, Michael Crichton brings up this great example:

For example, Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months; they cannot crawl or walk, they suffer seizures and eventually become paralyzed and die by adolescence. Formerly there was no test to tell parents if they were at risk. Families enduring the heartbreak of caring for these children engaged a researcher to identify the gene and produce a test. Canavan families around the world donated tissue and money to help this cause.

When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty. The parents did not believe genes should be patented and so did not put their names on the patent. Consequently, they had no control over the outcome.