This Essay Breaks the Law

[Guest guest]

This Essay Breaks the Law

By MICHAEL CRICHTON

Published: March 19, 2006

 

• The Earth revolves around the Sun.

 

• The speed of light is a constant.

 

• Apples fall to earth because of gravity.

 

• Elevated blood sugar is linked to diabetes.

 

• Elevated uric acid is linked to gout.

 

• Elevated homocysteine is linked to heart disease.

 

• Elevated homocysteine is linked to B-12 deficiency, so doctors

should test homocysteine levels to see whether the patient needs

vitamins.

 

ACTUALLY, I can't make that last statement. A corporation has patented

that fact, and demands a royalty for its use. Anyone who makes the

fact public and encourages doctors to test for the condition and treat

it can be sued for royalty fees. Any doctor who reads a patient's test

results and even thinks of vitamin deficiency infringes the patent. A

federal circuit court held that mere thinking violates the patent.

 

All this may sound absurd, but it is the heart of a case that will be

argued before the Supreme Court on Tuesday. In 1986 researchers filed

a patent application for a method of testing the levels of

homocysteine, an amino acid, in the blood. They went one step further

and asked for a patent on the basic biological relationship between

homocysteine and vitamin deficiency. A patent was granted that covered

both the test and the scientific fact. Eventually, a company called

Metabolite took over the license for the patent.

 

Although Metabolite does not have a monopoly on test methods — other

companies make homocysteine tests, too — they assert licensing rights

on the correlation of elevated homocysteine with vitamin deficiency. A

company called LabCorp used a different test but published an article

mentioning the patented fact. Metabolite sued on a number of grounds,

and has won in court so far.

 

But what the Supreme Court will focus on is the nature of the claimed

correlation. On the one hand, courts have repeatedly held that basic

bodily processes and " products of nature " are not patentable. That's

why no one owns gravity, or the speed of light. But at the same time,

courts have granted so-called correlation patents for many years.

Powerful forces are arrayed on both sides of the issue.

 

In addition, there is the rather bizarre question of whether simply

thinking about a patented fact infringes the patent. The idea smacks

of thought control, to say nothing of unenforceability. It seems like

something out of a novel by Philip K. Dick — or Kafka. But it

highlights the uncomfortable truth that the Patent Office and the

courts have in recent decades ruled themselves into a corner from

which they must somehow extricate themselves.

 

For example, the human genome exists in every one of us, and is

therefore our shared heritage and an undoubted fact of nature.

Nevertheless 20 percent of the genome is now privately owned. The gene

for diabetes is owned, and its owner has something to say about any

research you do, and what it will cost you. The entire genome of the

hepatitis C virus is owned by a biotech company. Royalty costs now

influence the direction of research in basic diseases, and often even

the testing for diseases. Such barriers to medical testing and

research are not in the public interest. Do you want to be told by

your doctor, " Oh, nobody studies your disease any more because the

owner of the gene/enzyme/correlation has made it too expensive to do

research? "

 

The question of whether basic truths of nature can be owned ought not

to be confused with concerns about how we pay for biotech development,

whether we will have drugs in the future, and so on. If you invent a

new test, you may patent it and sell it for as much as you can, if

that's your goal. Companies can certainly own a test they have

invented. But they should not own the disease itself, or the gene that

causes the disease, or essential underlying facts about the disease.

The distinction is not difficult, even though patent lawyers attempt

to blur it. And even if correlation patents have been granted, the

overwhelming majority of medical correlations, including those listed

above, are not owned. And shouldn't be.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/opinion/19crichton.html?ex=1300424400 & en=9acdb\

7fe498d2579 & ei=5090 & partner=rssuserland & emc=rss