Overblog
Seguir este blog
Edit post Administration Create my blog
El polvorín

Peligro de patentar la vida artificial

28 Mayo 2010 , Escrito por El polvorín Etiquetado en #Politica

 

 

 

PREMIO NOBEL DE MEDICINA DEL 2002 SE PRONUNCIA

Experto Sir John Sulston señala que monopolio pretendido por su colega Craig Venter no beneficiaría a las investigaciones

 

Sir John Sulston                                                                              Craig Venter

 

Miércoles 26 de Mayo del 2010

LONDRES [EFE]. El británico John Sulston, premio Nobel de Medicina del 2002, advirtió ayer del peligro de patentar la vida sintética porque, a su juicio, otorgaría el monopolio de la ingeniería genética a Craig Venter, el creador de la primera célula artificial.

Durante un debate realizado ayer en la Royal Society de Londres, en el que se cuestionó la conveniencia de patentar los descubrimientos científicos, Sulston sostuvo que las patentes impedirían a los expertos llevar a cabo importantes investigaciones a partir del hallazgo de Venter.

La sesión versó en torno al informe “Who owns Science?” (“¿Quién posee la ciencia?”), elaborado por el Institute of Science, Ethics And Innovation de la Universidad de Manchester , que preside el científico británico.

TENSIÓN PASADA
Sulston y Venter ya protagonizaron un conflicto similar en el 2000 cuando ambos compitieron por secuenciar el genoma humano.

                  

La patente de Craig Venter resultaría extremadamente dañina, ya que la protección intelectual de este descubrimiento exige un precio desorbitante por el uso de los datos.

Venter lideraba los esfuerzos del sector privado y defendía los derechos intelectuales del descubrimiento, mientras que Sulston, quien realizaba sus investigaciones con fondos gubernamentales y procedentes de donaciones, pretendía que la secuenciación del genoma fuera accesible a toda la comunidad científica de forma gratuita.

El enfrentamiento entre la iniciativa pública y la privada terminó hace diez años con la conclusión de que, “al tratarse del genoma humano, los datos debían ser de dominio público”, explicó ayer Sulston.

Ambos científicos vuelven a enfrentarse ahora sobre la conveniencia de que la primera forma de vida creada en el laboratorio, la célula apodada Synthia, sea patentada por sus creadores.

MONOPOLIO
Según Sulston, de la Universidad de Manchester, la patente resultaría extremadamente dañina, ya que el texto presentado para la protección intelectual de este descubrimiento “exige un precio desorbitante por el uso de los datos”.

“Espero que estas patentes no sean aceptadas porque, de lo contrario, pondrían la ingeniería genética bajo el control del Instituto J. Craig Venter (JCVI). Ellos tendrían el monopolio de un amplio número de técnicas”, explicó.

Ante ese argumento, un portavoz del JCVI replicó: “Hay muchas compañías y laboratorios académicos trabajando en distintos aspectos de la genómica o de la biología sintética. Muchos de ellos protegen bajo patente algún aspecto de su trabajo, por lo que ninguna compañía ni centro académico va a tener el monopolio de nada”.

SEPA MÁS
Según el estudio “Who owns Science?”, se está produciendo el incremento del uso de patentes entre los investigadores. Esto impide el desarrollo de estudios a partir de los nuevos descubrimientos.

Synthetic life patents 'damaging'

Page last updated at 21:02 GMT, Monday, 24 May 2010 22:02 UK

Details of the synthetic cell advance were announced last week

A top UK scientist who helped sequence the human genome has said efforts to patent the first synthetic life form would give its creator a monopoly on a range of genetic engineering.

Professor John Sulston said it would inhibit important research.

US-based Dr Craig Venter led the artificial life form research, details of which were published last week.

Prof Sulston and Dr Venter clashed over intellectual property when they raced to sequence the genome in 2000.

Craig Venter led a private sector effort which was to have seen charges for access to the information. John Sulston was part of a government and charity-backed effort to make the genome freely available to all scientists.

"The confrontation 10 years ago was about data release," Professor Sulston said.

"We said that this was the human genome and it should be in the public domain. And I'm extremely glad we managed to pull this out of the bag."

'Range of techniques'

Now the old rivals are at odds again over Dr Venter's efforts to apply for patents on the artificially created organism, nicknamed Synthia. The team outlined the remarkable advance last week in the prestigious journal Science.

But Professor Sulston, who is based at the University of Manchester, said patenting would be "extremely damaging".

"I've read through some of these patents and the claims are very, very broad indeed," Professor Sulston told BBC News.

"I hope very much these patents won't be accepted because they would bring genetic engineering under the control of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI). They would have a monopoly on a whole range of techniques."

A spokesman for Dr Venter, of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Maryland and California, said: "There are a number of companies working in the synthetic genomic/biology space and also many academic labs.

"Most if not all of these have likely filed some degree of patent protection on a variety of aspects of their work so it would seem unlikely that any one group, academic centre or company would be able to hold a 'monopoly' on anything.

"As the JCVI team and Dr Venter have said, open dialogue and discussion on all issues surrounding synthetic genomics/biology, including intellectual property, is very necessary for this field so these questions and discussions are all very important."

Over-use?

Professor Sulston made the comments at the Royal Society in London where he was discussing a report entitled Who owns Science? The report was produced by the Institute of Science, Ethics and Innovation at Manchester University, which the professor chairs.

The study details an increased use of patents by researchers.

"My objections to patenting human genes or genes from existing living organisms is that they are inventions or discoveries," said Professor Sulston.

"The problem has become much worse since I raised the issue 10 years ago."

He believes that the over-use of patents is inhibiting research that could otherwise greatly benefit society, such as better healthcare for the poor.

Professor Sulston commented: "[It's fashionable to think] that it's important to have strong intellectual property and that it's essential for promoting innovation. But there's no evidence that it does promote innovation. There's an unwillingness to consider any problems."

But he also believes that these arguments are now beginning to be accepted.

Last November, a US company, Myriad Genetics, lost parts of its patent rights on two breast cancer genes following a legal challenge by civil rights groups.

Advierten de peligro de patentar la vida artificial | Edición ...26 May 2010 ... Advierten de peligro de patentar la vida artificial. Experto señala que monopolio no beneficiaría a las investigaciones elcomercio.pe/.../advierten-peligro-patentar-vida-artificial/.../485087 -  

Compartir este post

Comentar este post

Mirinda Naranja 05/29/2010 19:18


A mi Craig Venter me recuerda un supervillano del cómic: http://desordencalculado.blogspot.com/2010/05/craig-venter-supervillano-o-premio.html