Why I Felt British Researchers Had to Patent the BRCA2 Gene

It was indeed stimulating to read Dr. Mary Henry'swith the way the company was proposing to use
recent article on Gene Patenting and there is nothe BRCA1 discovery. The discoverers
doubt that few issues in biological research haveimmediately discussed the implications of the
produced as much concern and debate as thisdiscovery with lawyers and directors at the
issue. When I first discussed the issue informallyInstitute of Cancer Research and the charity,
over dinner with Mary a few weeks ago, I waswhich funded the research, the Cancer Research
somewhat unsure whether genes per seCampaign (CRC). After much 'soul searching' it
themselves could be patented or just genewas decided to take a pragmatic approach and to
fragments (ESTs) which can be used as scientificfile for patent application to prevent other less
probes to help find a gene or help map aaltruistic organisations securing an advantageous
chromosome. Nevertheless, despite this arbitraryposition. This decision was compounded by the
distinction, we both agreed that allowing holders offact that the Sanger Centre in Cambridge were
such "gatekeeper" patents to exercise unduesequencing the BRCA2 interval, containing the
control over the commercial fruits of genomegene, and were due to publish this interval
research is ethically unfair. The focus of attentionsequence, hence damaging the potential of
was the right to patency of the BRCA2 gene,obtaining a strong patent.
which is presently being challenged in the EuropeanOn December 22nd, 1995, the day before Nature
Court by the Institut Curie in Paris and otherpublished the paper, the team announced the
researchers. The story that led the patenting ofdiscovery of the BRCA2 gene and the filing of
the BRCA2 gene is itself quite fascinating. It alsopatent application. The same day Myriad
involves the philanthropic basis of British researchannounced to the US press that they had
and the initial decision of the Cancer Researchdiscovered the BRCA2 gene and had filed their
Campaign to patent the gene because they feltown patent application. By the strict interpretation
that to do so, was the only possible way toof patent law, genes are and always have been
transfer a new discovery into the healthcarepatentable, as the recent directive of the
system for the ultimate good of the patient.European parliament has clearly stated. In the
The story started in 1988, when the UK breastsimplest terms, the owner of a granted has the
cancer study group initiated the establishment ofexclusive right to practice the 'invention' or to
a syndicate to search for the genetic basis oflicense that right to anyone else. It is important to
breast cancer. It was known at that time thatrealise that in the case of a gene patent, that the
approximately 10% of all breast cancer cases'invention' is really the industrial use of the gene,
could be ascribed to a hereditary association.not the actual gene 'per se'and hence it is the use
Within a few years this syndicate evolved into theof the genetic information encoded by a gene
Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium (BCLC), athat is really the basis of a patent. There are
European wide consortium of researchers whosome difference in US and European patent law,
had an interest in breast cancer. Some additionalincluding the fact that the US has a concept of
researchers in the US were also incorporated into'first to invent' while the rest of the world use a
the consortium but the funding for the BCLC'first to file' system. Another important concept in
came principally from the European Union andthe UK is the difference between 'inventorship'
each member group within the consortiumand ownership. A British scientist who makes an
obtained funding from their respective nationalintellectual contribution to the invention, (such as
governments. In 1990, a US research group leadthe finding of a gene linked to a disease), is an
by Mary-Clare King in California reported theinventor but rarely the owner of the invention.
identification of a genetic locus on the long arm ofThe owner is usually the employer of the
chromosome 17, which was linked to a familialscientist, in most cases the host University. The
predisposition to breast cancer. In 1993, thesedecision whether to file a patent application
findings were confirmed by the BCLC andcovering the BRCA2 discovery was a joint
reported in the American Journal of Humandecision between the scientists involved, the host
Genetics. All of the research performed ininstitution, in this case the Institute of Cancer
discovering the locus was done with funding thatResearch, and CRC Technology.
was received from public funding agencies. DuringBy filing this application, they were effectively
the period BCLC was researching the BRCA1saying that they wanted to be in the best position
gene, a newly established Salt Lake Genomicsto decide how to use this discovery to obtain
company, called Myriad Genetics startedmaximum benefit for the cancer patient. Thus,
performing its own search using the informationearly in 1996, after the chaos surrounding the
published by the BCLC. In 1994, a group from thediscovery had died away, a group of experts
University of Utah in association with Myriadfrom the Institute, CRC sat down to decide how
genetics announced in Science that they hadbest to use their patent position, especially defend
identified the BRCA1 gene.the patent and the distribution of the BRCA2
It became evident around this time that a secondgenetic test. In 2001, the Cancer Research
gene was playing a critical role in causingCampaign decided it would give Britain's National
hereditary breast cancer and consequently BCLCHealth Service free access to the gene, BRCA2.
commenced studies into identifying the BRCA2Because of the CRC position, the NHS were
gene. Consequently, a race between Myriadgranted a free license chose to on the diagnostic
Genetics and researchers led by Dr Mike Strattontest for BRCA2 and a patency battle presently
at the Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton,ensues between the charity and Myriad that will
Surrey was initiated to find this gene. Most peopledetermine whether women should pay thousands
felt that the superior funds of the Genomicsof dollars for genetic testing or continue to
company would allow them to discover thisreceive it free. The UK charity says it would also
second breast cancer gene but against the odds,make the gene available at minimal cost for use in
the group of researchers led by Mike StrattonIrish and Australian hospitals as well as Britain.
stunned everybody by announcing that they hadPresently, Myriad charges many thousands of
discovered the BRCA2 gene. Even before BRCA2dollars to analyse the two genes and the service
was fully identified, the pioneering research ofis available without prior genetic counselling. We
Prof. Peter Daly of St. James Hospital andshould hence also recognise the philanthropic
discovery of the first mutation in a large Irishattitude of The Cancer Research Campaign
family should be remembered and totallyTechnology, who have blocked the Myriad patent
respected. The problem unfortunately existed thatin Britain and in Australia on the basis that it
the discoverers of BRCA2 had opposed themostly funded the initial research that eventually
patenting of genes, and had specifically not joinedled to BRCA2's identification.
the Myriad consortium because of disagreements