OTHER GENETIC ISSUES

Corrupted Science

CRG's Sheldon Krimsky has compiled a series of Power Point presentations on the growing instances of ethical misconduct in the scientific world. Topics include conflict of interest, ghostwriting, and the withholding of research results, among others. These presentations can be found at his Tufts University website.

Biotechnology & Communities

Background Materials

Indigenous People, Genes, and Genetics: What Indigenous People Should Know About Biocolonialism by Debra Harry, Brett Lee Shelton, and Stephanie Howard (Indigenous Peoples Council on Biocolonialism)

Articles

Latina/o Farmers and Biotechnology by Devon G. Pena, GeneWatch, November 2001

Genes and Native Identity by Brett Lee Shelton and Jonathan Marks, GeneWatch, November 2001

Commentary: Life Patents and AIDS Drug Access by Jonathan King, GeneWatch, November 2001

Life Patents

Rapid developments in biotechnology over the last two decades have enabled corporations and scientists to alter nature's handiwork for commercial profit. The patent, a tool originally created to insure that inventors could share in the financial returns and benefits deriving from the use of their nventions, has become the primary mechanism through which the private sector advances its claims to ownership over genes, proteins, and entire organisms.

The patenting of living organisms and their parts poses a significant threat to human health and the environment. By restricting access to vital medical and scientific information, patents retard the pace of progress of health care. The monopolies that patents confer allow corporations to consolidate their control over global pharmaceutical and agricultural supplies. As these developments affect all of society, the question arises over whether any corporation, institution, or individual should have the right to commercial ownership of life.

Patents also set a dangerous precedent by making living organisms into commodities that can be bought and sold. As the recent May announcement that a patent for cloned human embryos had been granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) suggests, the future ownership of human beings is a prospect that cannot be ignored.

In the absence of widespread public debate, it may appear to many that the patenting of life is irrevocable. But the US Congress has repeatedly changed patent laws when faced with major public pressure, as when, for example, it excluded nuclear weapons from patentability in 1982.

The Council for Responsible Genetics works with a coalition of health and patient advocacy groups to build support for a ban on the patenting of life. A main component of this campaign is to identify and explain the practical risks of patenting for innovation and the open exchange of scientific data.

Background Materials

No Patents on Life Petition

Biotech Patenting 101 by Warren Kaplan, GeneWatch, May 2001

Articles

Of Transgenic Mice and Men by Peter Shorett, GeneWatch, September 2002

The End of the Revolution by Matthew Albright, GeneWatch, May 2002

No Patents on Life Working Group Update by Rebecca Charnas, GeneWatch, May 2002

The Human Genome Projects: Help or Hindrance for Gene Patenting? by Matthew Albright, GeneWatch, May 2001

Patents on Cells, Genes, and Organisms Undermine the Exchange of Scientific Ideas by Doreen Stabinsky and Jonathan King, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 5 February 1999

CRG in the Press

"Do Gene Patents Wrap Research in Red Tape?" by Tom Abate, San Francisco Chronicle, 25 March 2002

Resources

Foundation on Economic Trends

ETC Group (formerly RAFI)

Scientists Response Team

The GeneWatch Scientist Response Team brings together scientists from across the country who are willing and able to critically respond to genetic developments in the media. The Team's broad base of scientific expertise can efficiently analyze announcements from the industry and evaluate them for their true costs and benefits. The Team has also consulted on issues for lawmakers at both the state and federal level.

To learn more, contact us