Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
DNA 'birthday' marred by costly gene patents
By Donna Dickenson |
May 29, 2013, Wednesday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
ON April 25, 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson published a one-page paper that many believed would revolutionize biological research.
Building on the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, they had discovered DNA's double-helix structure, providing the first glimpse into how organisms inherit and store biological information.
But, 60 years later, has their discovery had the transformative impact that the world expected?
The media marked the publication's 60th anniversary with much fanfare, hailing the breakthrough that "ushered in the age of genetics."
To some extent, they are right. The finding forms the basis of genetics and has opened up promising new research areas, such as synthetic biology, in which biological systems are created or modified to perform specific functions.
Moreover, DNA has acquired a certain mystique in popular culture. According to Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee, it has become a sacred entity - the modern equivalent of the Christian soul, an individual's essence.
While some forms of biological determinism, such as the belief that race or gender dictates a person's destiny, have been widely rejected, the idea that a person can be genetically predisposed, say, to get into debt, become a ruthless dictator, or vote regularly in elections remains socially acceptable.
But, almost from the beginning - and most intensely since 1971, when Time magazine published a special section titled "The New Genetics: Man into Superman" - science and society alike have tended to overestimate the impact of genetics.
When the Human Genome Project published the first draft of the fully sequenced human genome in 2000, Henry Gee, an editor of the journal Nature, predicted that scientists would be able "to alter entire organisms out of all recognition to suit our needs and tastes" by 2099. "We will have extra limbs, if we want them," he asserted, "maybe even wings to fly."
Back to square one
Thirteen years later, Gee's prediction looks increasingly unlikely, with the Human Genome Project so far having failed to meet expectations. Indeed, in 2010, the science writer Nicholas Wade lamented that, a decade after the project was launched, geneticists were "almost back to square one in knowing where to look for the roots of common disease."
Genetics has been a source of particularly high hopes when it comes to cancer treatment. Between 1962 and 1985, cancer-related deaths in the US rose by 8.7 percent, despite the use of aggressive chemotherapy drugs and radiation therapy.
Heterogeneous cancer
An understanding of the genetic determinants of patients' therapeutic response, it was believed, would enable doctors to develop individualized treatment programs, sparing more responsive patients from harmful over-treatment.
But patients are not the only variable. Cancer, too, is heterogeneous, even in patients with the same diagnosis.
After sequencing the entire genomes of 50 patients' breast cancer tumors, researchers found that only 10 percent of the tumors had more than three mutations in common.
According to a recent study mapping genetic mutations in 2,000 tumors, breast cancer can actually be divided into 10 subgroups. Similarly, a genome-wide analysis of malignant cells from four kidney-cancer patients showed that, while they were related, they had mutated in many different directions.
Two-thirds of the genetic faults identified were not repeated in the same tumor, let alone in any other metastasized tumors in the body.
Given that a pharmacogenetic drug targets one mutation in the tumor, it will not necessarily work on the other mutations. To be sure, pharmacogenetics has made a profound difference for some patients.
?Golden age'
Barbara Bradfield, one of the original subjects in research trials for the pharmacogenetic cancer drug Herceptin, has now been stable on the drug for more than 20 years. But such success stories are far too rare to constitute a "golden age" of genetics.
The high price of such drugs is limiting their impact as well. Herceptin can cost up to US$40,000 annually, and newer cancer drugs cost even more, making them prohibitively expensive for most patients.
The US Supreme Court is currently faced with the question of whether genes can be patented. If the court upholds the biotechnology company Myriad Genetics' patents on two genes which, in some variants, are linked to higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer, the company will retain exclusive rights to use the genes in research, diagnosis, and treatment for two decades, preventing rivals from developing cheaper alternatives.
Women have already been denied access to a diagnostic test, because insurers refuse to pay the company's high prices.
Manufacturers claim that gene patents, which now cover 25-40 percent of the human genome, are vital to recouping their investments. But such patents mar DNA's "birthday" celebrations for the patients who stand to benefit from the fruits of genetic research - if only they could afford them.
Donna Dickenson, emeritus professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities at the University of London, is the author of the forthcoming book "Me Medicine vs We Medicine." Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
Building on the work of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins, they had discovered DNA's double-helix structure, providing the first glimpse into how organisms inherit and store biological information.
But, 60 years later, has their discovery had the transformative impact that the world expected?
The media marked the publication's 60th anniversary with much fanfare, hailing the breakthrough that "ushered in the age of genetics."
To some extent, they are right. The finding forms the basis of genetics and has opened up promising new research areas, such as synthetic biology, in which biological systems are created or modified to perform specific functions.
Moreover, DNA has acquired a certain mystique in popular culture. According to Dorothy Nelkin and Susan Lindee, it has become a sacred entity - the modern equivalent of the Christian soul, an individual's essence.
While some forms of biological determinism, such as the belief that race or gender dictates a person's destiny, have been widely rejected, the idea that a person can be genetically predisposed, say, to get into debt, become a ruthless dictator, or vote regularly in elections remains socially acceptable.
But, almost from the beginning - and most intensely since 1971, when Time magazine published a special section titled "The New Genetics: Man into Superman" - science and society alike have tended to overestimate the impact of genetics.
When the Human Genome Project published the first draft of the fully sequenced human genome in 2000, Henry Gee, an editor of the journal Nature, predicted that scientists would be able "to alter entire organisms out of all recognition to suit our needs and tastes" by 2099. "We will have extra limbs, if we want them," he asserted, "maybe even wings to fly."
Back to square one
Thirteen years later, Gee's prediction looks increasingly unlikely, with the Human Genome Project so far having failed to meet expectations. Indeed, in 2010, the science writer Nicholas Wade lamented that, a decade after the project was launched, geneticists were "almost back to square one in knowing where to look for the roots of common disease."
Genetics has been a source of particularly high hopes when it comes to cancer treatment. Between 1962 and 1985, cancer-related deaths in the US rose by 8.7 percent, despite the use of aggressive chemotherapy drugs and radiation therapy.
Heterogeneous cancer
An understanding of the genetic determinants of patients' therapeutic response, it was believed, would enable doctors to develop individualized treatment programs, sparing more responsive patients from harmful over-treatment.
But patients are not the only variable. Cancer, too, is heterogeneous, even in patients with the same diagnosis.
After sequencing the entire genomes of 50 patients' breast cancer tumors, researchers found that only 10 percent of the tumors had more than three mutations in common.
According to a recent study mapping genetic mutations in 2,000 tumors, breast cancer can actually be divided into 10 subgroups. Similarly, a genome-wide analysis of malignant cells from four kidney-cancer patients showed that, while they were related, they had mutated in many different directions.
Two-thirds of the genetic faults identified were not repeated in the same tumor, let alone in any other metastasized tumors in the body.
Given that a pharmacogenetic drug targets one mutation in the tumor, it will not necessarily work on the other mutations. To be sure, pharmacogenetics has made a profound difference for some patients.
?Golden age'
Barbara Bradfield, one of the original subjects in research trials for the pharmacogenetic cancer drug Herceptin, has now been stable on the drug for more than 20 years. But such success stories are far too rare to constitute a "golden age" of genetics.
The high price of such drugs is limiting their impact as well. Herceptin can cost up to US$40,000 annually, and newer cancer drugs cost even more, making them prohibitively expensive for most patients.
The US Supreme Court is currently faced with the question of whether genes can be patented. If the court upholds the biotechnology company Myriad Genetics' patents on two genes which, in some variants, are linked to higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer, the company will retain exclusive rights to use the genes in research, diagnosis, and treatment for two decades, preventing rivals from developing cheaper alternatives.
Women have already been denied access to a diagnostic test, because insurers refuse to pay the company's high prices.
Manufacturers claim that gene patents, which now cover 25-40 percent of the human genome, are vital to recouping their investments. But such patents mar DNA's "birthday" celebrations for the patients who stand to benefit from the fruits of genetic research - if only they could afford them.
Donna Dickenson, emeritus professor of Medical Ethics and Humanities at the University of London, is the author of the forthcoming book "Me Medicine vs We Medicine." Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2013.www.project-syndicate.org. Shanghai Daily condensed the article.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
