Letter: Safeguards on patenting of genes
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Safeguards on patenting of genes
Sir: The religious leaders' objections to the European directive on the protection of biotechnological inventions are misguided (letter, 14 July).
The directive allows the patenting of genes (sequences of DNA which code for proteins). These in no way constitute "life", as your correspondents seem to think. They are just chemicals. If genes are life, and that is all we are, what place is there for our "souls", which they presumably propose we have?
They ignore the fact that a large number of patients' groups representing people suffering from genetic conditions support the directive, as the only way to encourage investment in tests and treatments for diseases they suffer from.
If patenting is not allowed, then trade secrecy will ensue. It is that which will restrict communication between companies, not patenting. The point of a patent is that an inventor can go public, safe in the knowledge that their intellectual property is safe and their investment protected.
It is ethically inept to regard patent law as the forum for regulation of genetic technologies. What is needed is separate, well-thought-out restrictions on the research and application of the new genetics, not a ham-fisted combination of patent law and theology.
ADAM HEDGECOE
Centre for Professional Ethics
University of Central Lancashire
Preston
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments