“One of the controversies surrounding issuance of patents covering naturally occurring mutations, the occurrence of which correlates with an increased risk of developing disease, is the belief that they will be used to prevent doctors from practicing medicine. Some fear that patents on fragments of DNA might also impede basic research due to complicated licensing webs.” [1]

The fear mentioned in the statement above is founded in the same belief system that argues genetic patents will hinder “pure” scientific research by limiting the ease with which information is shared. At its core, medicine is science, so this should not be surprising. What is surprising is that with concern over the increasing cost of medical care, the biotech industry used the very argument leveled against them to oppose the granting of genetic patents to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “The Industrial Biotechnology Association (IBA), which represented 125 larger companies, including 80% of U.S. investment in biotechnology, …suggested that issuing the NIH patents would increase costs of product development as well as risks of future patent infringement litigation.” [2]

“…the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association… actively opposed the NIH patent in a May 28, 1992 letter to Louis W. Sullivan, the Secretary of HHS, saying that ‘a governmental policy of ownership and licensing of gene sequences would inevitably impede the research and development of new medicines in this country.’” [3

[1] “Ethical Issues and Application of Patent Laws in Biotechnology” by Rochelle K. Seide, and Carmella L. Stephens.
[2] “Patenting Human Genes The Advent of Ethics in the Political Economy of Patent Law” by Ari Berkowitz
[3] “Patenting Human Genes The Advent of Ethics in the Political Economy of Patent Law” by Ari Berkowitz