Though deciphering the entire human genetic blueprint is still a few years away, scientists have begun laying claim to the stretches of DNA whose codes they have succeeded in cracking. In recent years researchers have flooded the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with applications for thousands of genes and gene fragments--and they have stirred a lot of controversy in the process.
(1) The biggest problem with patenting genes is that while scientists have at least a general idea of what specific strands of genetic coding do, often it's just that--general. Investigators do sometimes succeed in isolating a single, crisp gene with a single known function. Often, however, researchers trying to map genes get no further than marking off fragmentary stretches of DNA that may be thousands of bases in length. (2) These so-called expressed sequence tags may have real genetic information embedded in them, but determining where those nuggets are and what their structure is takes more digging.
Geneticists have lately been filing patent applications for these ESTs anyway, figuring that it's best to protect their turf now and go spelunking(探索洞穴) around in it later. In a science that prizes precision above all else, this can be an odd way to do business. "I would guess that in many cases the scientists didn't even examine all the material," says Bruce Lehman, commissioner or the Patent and Trademark Office.
Not only can such filings be sloppy genetics, they can also be bad business. EST applications may lead to so-called submarine patents, claims that are made today and then vanish, only to reappear when some unsuspecting scientist finds something useful to do with genes hidden in the patent. To prevent this, Lehman requires that EST applications include no more than 10 genetic sequences. Each 10 after that requires a separate application--and a separate filing fee. "Companies will now have an incentive to file more selective applications," says Lehman.
(3) More troubling than determining how to patent the genome is the larger question of whether anyone ought to be laying claim to human DNA at all. This is partly an economic issue. If the entire genetic schematic(圖表) is preemptively owned by the research teams studying it now, where is the incentive for independent scientists--often sources of great innovation to work on it later? Licensing cost, warns Jeffrey Kahn, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, could hold medical progress hostage. (4) Patenting proponents insist that an equally persuasive argument could be made that the large genome-mapping groups need patent protection to make their work worthwhile to them.
Stickier than the economic question is the ethical one. Most of us reflexively shrink from the idea of anyone's owning the rights to any part of the human form. Besides, if the first anatomist to spot, say, the pancreas(胰) was not granted title to it, why should modem genome-mapping scientists be able to claim even a single gene? As Kahn points out, "You could patent a system for mining gold from ore. We don't let people patent the gold". (5) That kind of argument is grounded not in law but in the very idea of what it means to be human an issue that even the highest federal court is not likely to settle.
參考答案
1.申請基因專利的問題就是當科學家們對于基因編碼的特定股起什么作用至少有一個大體想法時，它常常就只是大體上的。
2.這些所謂的已表達的序列標簽可能攜帶有真正的基因信息，但確定這些小塊在什么地方及它們的結構是什么樣子需要更多的挖掘探究。
3.比確定如何申請基因組專利更令人煩惱的是一個更大的問題——任何人到底該不該對人類DNA提出專利要求。
4.專利申請者的支持者堅持說，他們可以提出同樣有說服力的理由，即進行基因組繪制工作的大型團體需要專利保護以使他們的工作對他們來說是值得的。
5.這種論點不是立足于法律，而是立足于對做人意味著什么的理解上——這是一個連聯(lián)邦法院都不太可能解決的問題。
(1) The biggest problem with patenting genes is that while scientists have at least a general idea of what specific strands of genetic coding do, often it's just that--general. Investigators do sometimes succeed in isolating a single, crisp gene with a single known function. Often, however, researchers trying to map genes get no further than marking off fragmentary stretches of DNA that may be thousands of bases in length. (2) These so-called expressed sequence tags may have real genetic information embedded in them, but determining where those nuggets are and what their structure is takes more digging.
Geneticists have lately been filing patent applications for these ESTs anyway, figuring that it's best to protect their turf now and go spelunking(探索洞穴) around in it later. In a science that prizes precision above all else, this can be an odd way to do business. "I would guess that in many cases the scientists didn't even examine all the material," says Bruce Lehman, commissioner or the Patent and Trademark Office.
Not only can such filings be sloppy genetics, they can also be bad business. EST applications may lead to so-called submarine patents, claims that are made today and then vanish, only to reappear when some unsuspecting scientist finds something useful to do with genes hidden in the patent. To prevent this, Lehman requires that EST applications include no more than 10 genetic sequences. Each 10 after that requires a separate application--and a separate filing fee. "Companies will now have an incentive to file more selective applications," says Lehman.
(3) More troubling than determining how to patent the genome is the larger question of whether anyone ought to be laying claim to human DNA at all. This is partly an economic issue. If the entire genetic schematic(圖表) is preemptively owned by the research teams studying it now, where is the incentive for independent scientists--often sources of great innovation to work on it later? Licensing cost, warns Jeffrey Kahn, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, could hold medical progress hostage. (4) Patenting proponents insist that an equally persuasive argument could be made that the large genome-mapping groups need patent protection to make their work worthwhile to them.
Stickier than the economic question is the ethical one. Most of us reflexively shrink from the idea of anyone's owning the rights to any part of the human form. Besides, if the first anatomist to spot, say, the pancreas(胰) was not granted title to it, why should modem genome-mapping scientists be able to claim even a single gene? As Kahn points out, "You could patent a system for mining gold from ore. We don't let people patent the gold". (5) That kind of argument is grounded not in law but in the very idea of what it means to be human an issue that even the highest federal court is not likely to settle.
參考答案
1.申請基因專利的問題就是當科學家們對于基因編碼的特定股起什么作用至少有一個大體想法時，它常常就只是大體上的。
2.這些所謂的已表達的序列標簽可能攜帶有真正的基因信息，但確定這些小塊在什么地方及它們的結構是什么樣子需要更多的挖掘探究。
3.比確定如何申請基因組專利更令人煩惱的是一個更大的問題——任何人到底該不該對人類DNA提出專利要求。
4.專利申請者的支持者堅持說，他們可以提出同樣有說服力的理由，即進行基因組繪制工作的大型團體需要專利保護以使他們的工作對他們來說是值得的。
5.這種論點不是立足于法律，而是立足于對做人意味著什么的理解上——這是一個連聯(lián)邦法院都不太可能解決的問題。