Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Gene Rush

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted December 14, 2005.


A crop of absurd genetic patents are bamboozling U.S. patent examiners and stifling innovation among farmers and scientists.
121005_story
Advertisement

As biotech crops blanket more and more of the countryside, America's organic farmers are struggling to keep their crops organic. The natural tendency of pollen and seed to wander from field to field, along with improved genetic-detection methods, have made it harder than ever to produce organic food that can be labeled as free of patented, engineered genes.

So in 2002, a group of plant breeders led by scientists at Cornell University set out to breed organic corn varieties with built-in protection against stray genes.

To do so, they took advantage of a well-known, naturally occurring gene, GaS, that inhibits fertilization of a corn plant by uninvited pollen. It looked like a neat way to keep patented pollen out of the organic gene pool, but there was one hitch.

The key to the breeders' plan, the GaS gene, was patented.

Last April, Nebraska seedcorn company Hoegemeyer Hybrids was awarded United States Patent 6875905, entitled "Method of producing field corn seed and plants." It described the use of GaS to block foreign corn pollen. When I asked Tom Hoegemeyer, chief technology officer of his family's company, how he first hit upon the idea, he said, "There was no particular flash of insight. It just occurred to me back in '95 or thereabouts. I remembered reading about it back in grad school."

But members of the Cornell team don't understand how patent examiners ever could have approved the application. They say the gene GaS is extremely common in tropical corn varieties, that it has been transferred many times into US strains, and that the idea has been published in the scientific literature.

Novelty and "non-obviousness" have always been two essential characteristics of a patentable idea. But the use of GaS, says Frank Kutka, who worked on the project as a Cornell graduate student, "is not novel and is perfectly obvious."

He points to an article published exactly 50 years ago in Agronomy Journal, then the premiere journal of agricultural research. In that paper, an Iowa State University scientist described the use of GaS for virtually the same purposes that are described in the Hoegemeyer patent.

But until someone invests considerable time and money to challenge the GaS patent, it will stay on the books.

Hoegemeyer's is only the latest in a long parade of patents laying claim to naturally occurring plants and genes. In 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of patents on crop varieties and all of their parts, including pollen, egg cells and genes. The effect of the Court's opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, was to declare the agricultural gene pool open to genetic prospectors. And the rush is on.

Bean counters and melon squeezers

In the world of patents, novelty is supposed to be king. Many of today's genetic patents demonstrate cleverness -- no argument there -- but too often it's the cleverness of the poacher, not the inspiration of the inventor.

In one widely discussed case, a Colorado business executive named Larry Proctor obtained a patent on a yellow version of the common dry bean. To come up with his "invention," he pulled a few yellow specimens out of a bag of normal-colored beans bought in a Mexican market. After growing plants and selecting among them for a few generations (a generally ineffective way to breed beans), Proctor applied successfully to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The 1999 patent covers much more than his own variety of bean. If you want to market any beans with a similar shade of yellow in the United States, the patent requires that you get a license from Proctor. Proctor has brought lawsuits to defend his claim, but as of July 2005, his family professed never to have collected a penny.

News of Proctor's patent caused more than a little bafflement in Latin America, where people have been growing, trading, cooking and eating yellow beans for millenia. Indeed, Proctor's beans are almost identical genetically to yellow varieties from Mexico. Despite protests, the patent continues in effect.


Digg!

Stan Cox is a senior research scientist at the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas and a member of the Institute's Prairie Writers Circle.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Finders keepers?
Posted by: Scipio2001 on Dec 14, 2005 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my view, any patent on genes simply found in nature is nothing but perverse. Imagine - if I found out I had a special resistance gene to some disease and patented it, everybody who has the same gene would have to pay a fee to be able to use it, or risk punishment for patent infringement - including my identical twin brother, who naturally shares the gene, but not the patent! And what about repeat offenders? These people couldn't stop using the gene! I can just see the prisons filling up - or would you suggest gene therapy to remove the infringing gene from these criminals (paid by the offender, of course)? Or maybe just royalties, in perpetuity, and you didn't even have to work for them?

In my view, only genes that have been substantially modified (e.g. with new triggers/promotors) should qualify for patents. If somebody can make a bean collect sugar in its fruit instead of protein, that's an innovation worthy of a patent (regardless of whether that is a useful one or not). If somebody simply finds a bean that does just that, it isn't. If in doubt, ask for a manual of the engineering process and have it tested (paid by the applicant). If the test doesn't reliably succeed, the whole thing is probably a fraud.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think you're spot on. Posted by: Colin
» RE: Finders keepers? Posted by: RandomAction
» RE: Finders keepers? Posted by: monkeywrench
Be on notice
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Dec 14, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to patent air within the next year. So don't hold your breath.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no name
Posted by: otto on Dec 14, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you heard of the case of Percy Schmeiser, a Canadian farmer (organic) in Saskatchewan who was sued byl Montsanto because their genetically modified seeds blew into his field. He had to struggle for years, almost losing and all his family had learned and saved for 50 years of research on organic farming. He was finally vindicated in theSlupreme Court ofCanada. The ability to patent genes has gone to ridiculous levels.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: no name Posted by: mwildfire
» Percy Schmeiser clarifications Posted by: evermind
no patents on life
Posted by: mwildfire on Dec 14, 2005 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Overwhelmingly the people of the world reject the idea of patents on life forms. There are good points made in this piece (good book to read on broader issue of problems with patents is Owning the Future by Sean (?) Shulman--I think it's out of print though), but, like the book I just mentioned, it doesn't address the problems inherent in genetically engineering food in the first place. There are many reasons this is a dangerous practice; you can find good information on the etc website or the Organic Consumers association website which is www.organicconsumers.org.
Genes should not be patentable.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"What's Next?"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 14, 2005 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With what's going on with the Supreme Court's approach to patents on naturally-occurring living things, I'm surprised greedy rat-bastard investors haven't tried to patent that upon which all terrestrial plant life depends: a "process for converting and reducing both igneous and sedimentary solid forms of supportive material into a moisture- and nutrient-retaining, ubiquitous growth medium."

Also commonly known as dirt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

All part of the facists realm......
Posted by: Smiggsy on Dec 14, 2005 9:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to patent the notion of viewing the PC screen with your eyes as well as the function of physically typing things onto a form of digital communication likely being the internet. Now everybody must get my permission to read this web page & no more entering any posts!

Its all part of the facists realm we all now live under. Welcome to the beginninng of the nightmare, welcome to "1984" everybody.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patents are important, but......
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Dec 14, 2005 3:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Patents are an important incentive for plant breeders to perform extremely difficult work such as mapping disease resistance genes and working on quality trait improvements. However, as the article explains if people are allowed to patent genes commonly found in widely used germplasm it will make breeding so difficult it wont be worth (too much paper work and no time to do the breeding) it anymore. The patents dont always work out for the best because of the legal costs. Most of the money individuals or universities would make by these patents would probably go the lawyers. The whole legal system used for patents needs to be reformed everyone will lose out except for the lawyers. Patents are starting to fail the people of this country and the world. The melon example is an excellent illustration of how patents can stifle competition and harm the safety (e.g. access) of the food supply. People should be allowed to patent varieties (bred varieties, not traditional land races), but not general quality traits of plants. Someone should patent the ears of corn with more than 100 kernels or just rust resistance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not much different than cloning
Posted by: Asses of Evil on Dec 14, 2005 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
both are trying to patent natural biological processes. And you wonder why Europeans are revolting against genetically modified food. I'm gonna patent the letter a. So them bastards in Alabama ain't grandfathering their way out of this one. Oh shoot, I owe myself money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Patents on water
Posted by: kattmann on Dec 14, 2005 11:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am going to patent water and dandilions, then I will sue the chemical producers for contamination and damages to my products.
When the producers of these grains can stop their variety from cross pollenating with all the others then they can have the patent. If they allow their variety to cross pollenate they give up the rights or control of it. If they want a patent on a grain that is pollenated using the wind they must keep their crops out of the wind or loose rights to the patent and face suits for damages from other like product producers who older variety product is altered due to cross pollenation with their patented variety.
Like the auto makers, parts for Fords don't fit on Chevys and so on. If they want to patent a grain they must make one that doesn't pollenate using natural processes like the wind, and one that can't pollenate another variety or be pollenated by another variety, that should be the only way they could patent a grain etc. Nor should they be able to patent a variety of grain that is older than their company. If they the big chemical corps can patent a seed/grain that is a thousand years older than their company is, then I can patent water. There isn't any difference.
Thanks for your great work AlterNet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DanH
Posted by: SicfkOfBush on Dec 14, 2005 11:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Any idea or invention that has been publicly revealed more than one year prior to the application is no longer patentable in the U.S. In some foreign countries is no longer patentable as of the date of publication of the invention idea. I was involved in such a case some years ago. After I found evidence that the invention had been disclosed publicly some 14 months before the patent was applied for the prior issuance of the patent in question was to be re-examined., so I was informed by the legal department of the company for which I worked.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake Up and Smell the GMOs!
Posted by: GreenOne on Jan 3, 2006 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to dwell on the past, but our Founding Fathers would be aghast at this insanity. In fact, living things NEVER were patentable until relatively recently. Most of the world's people can't fathom the legal or moral rationales given for the patenting of LIFE itself. It makes one wonder how the US Supreme Court can even begin to justify having jurisdiction in this arena, and whether the folks at our so-called "watch-dog" agencies can do anything but tow the corporate line (did anyone say "revolving-door"?). And when our great-grandchildren have become giant green MUTANTS and "biodiversity" has become an archaism, then perhaps we will wake from our Rip-Van-Winkle-like sleep, and remember a world where Nature prevailed, and the plants, as well as the birds and the bees...were REAL. Let's wake up now before it's too late. If nothing else, it's our responsibility to protect the planet's genetic heritage, and in our best interests to preserve it for the public good. No one can truly be said to "own" a seed, but rather we are only stewards of what the generations before us have passed down to us. How ironic will it be when rather than having the much-predicted "nuclear winter" we instead come to live among "green deserts" where everything that appears normal is down-the-rabbithole STRANGE, not to mention TOXIC, and imperils the very web of life that sustains us. When that happens, we'll need some kind a powerful magic to UN-DO it! Or maybe we'll be gone like the dinosaurs by then, leaving our mess for the rise of whatever insects and microbes might survive. To the degree that GMOs may be regarded as a form of environmental pollution, then it's really time to clean up, perhaps even TRANSMUTE it. But before a house cleaning is undertaken, it would be best if the ongoing pollution were simply STOPPED.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]