Gene Patents: Another Step towards the Capitalist Heart of Darkness

Twenty percent of human genes have been patented by individuals or corporations, according to Jurassic Park and ER creator Michael Crichton, in a New York Times article entitled Patenting Life. Crichton argues that the patenting of genes is different from other forms of privatisation, that it introduces concepts that are materially different from the private ownership of land, water, banks, transport networks energy or non-gene related patents. "Ordinarily, we imagine patents promote innovation, but that’s because most patents are granted for human inventions. Genes aren’t human inventions, they are features of the natural world. As a result these patents can be used to block innovation, and hurt patient care." But how are gene patents different from patents in general? Or private property in general? For example, how about the unfettered private ownership of coal mines in Pennsylvania in the 19th Century, as portrayed in this documentary on The Molly Maguires. The mine owners used their property rights to control every aspect of their workers' lives, effectively enslaving them. Everything -- even the judiciary -- were subservient to the absolute property rights of the mine owners. Enclosure, privatisation, patent, copyright. It's all about the somewhat arbitrary awarding of private property to a set of individuals who are expected to take account of the greater good of society. Sometimes it works that way. Very often, it doesn't. The patenting of the human genome isn't something new. It's just another step down the road into capitalism's Heart of Darkness. What do I think they should do? Grant the patents. Examine the applications and therapies that emerge. Then regulate the hell out of them so that they'll have to share it around. That's what I think, Comrade Crichton.