H.R. 977
“At this point in time, significant proportion of the human genome sequence has been patented and numerous unreasonable licensing practices have triggered the public’s negative view of patenting human genes.”

-- Michael S. Watson, Ph.D, FACMG





H.R. 977, The Genomic Research and Accessibility Act

Common sense legislation that will end the practice of gene patenting



Friends:



It was in February of 1953 when James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the molecule that contains the genetic information of nearly all living organisms. Few discoveries have matched theirs in the understanding of the make up of the human species. This discovery led to the 1990 founding of the Human Genome Project whose goal was to code three billion nucleotides contained in the human genome and to identify all the genes present in it. The Project’s efforts have led to the discovery of approximately 35,000 genes.



Twenty percent of these genes have already been patented and we have absolutely no say in what those patent holders do with our genes.



This cannot be what Watson and Crick intended.



Here are a few examples of the implications of gene patenting:



1. Gene patents interfere with research on diagnoses and cures. Half of all laboratories have stopped developing diagnostic tests because of concerns about infringing gene patents. One laboratory in four has had to abandon a clinical test in progress because of gene patents.



2. Forty-seven percent of geneticists have been denied requests from other faculty members for information, data, or materials regarding published research. The practice of withholding data detrimentally affects the training of the next generation of scientists. Almost one fourth of doctoral students and postdoctoral fellows reported they have been denied access to information, data and materials.



3. Disease-causing bacteria and viruses have now been patented. The genome of the virus that causes Hepatitis C, for example, is owned. This can lead to major problems, for if someone else wants to introduce inexpensive, timely public health testing for this (or another) common infectious disease, the patent holder can prevent it.



This is a serious problem and it is growing.



And it is for this reason that I, along with my friend and colleague, Rep. Dave Weldon, M.D. (FL-15) have introduced the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, straight forward legislation that ends the practice of gene patenting.



Congress has the constitutional right to proliferate and reward the advancement of invention, but it also has the responsibility to intervene should that advancement be misdirected or incorrect. Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution states that we must “promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” But implicit in those words is the power of discretion – Congress’ charge to offer guidance on what exactly merits an exclusive right.



Genes are a product of nature and thus, should not be patentable. Patenting the gene for breast cancer (yes, breast cancer genes are patented) or any other gene is the analogous equivalent to patenting water, air, birds or diamonds.



Enacting the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act does not hamper invention, indeed, it encourages it. Medical innovation and economic advancement will occur if the study of genes is allowed to happen unabated. Incredible manifestations of intellectual property will result: medicines, machines, processes – most deserving of recognition, some potentially life-saving, and all worthy of a patent.



Supporters of this legislation continue to pile up. Dr. John E. Sulston, the winner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Medicine has said that "[f]rom the point of view of scientific research, the chief reason is that genome sequences are about as basic as you can get in terms of biological information. Of no practical use in themselves, they provide fundamental knowledge that has to be interpreted and employed-a tool for future research … Private sequence databases are … of limited value … The consequence of dependence on private databases for fundamental information would be a severe curtailment of scientific networks."



I hope you will take the time to navigate through my Web site devoted to H.R. 977 to learn more about this critical issue.



Congress must act, soon. Passing H.R. 977 is a personal priority of mine, for it is the right policy whose time has come.



Thank you for your time and consideration.



Sincerely,



HON. REPRESENTIVE, XAVIER BECERRA (CA)









Endorsement Letters





From best-selling author Michael Crichton, to the American College of Medical Genetics, to CyGene Laboratories, to a reputable professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine, to many more … ALL have committed their support for H.R. 977 and to ending the practice of gene patenting.



Click here to read what they have to say.