Scientific Gold Rush

               At the beginning of the cold fusion case study, Trevor Pinch says that the claim “launched the equivalent of a scientific gold rush (1998).” This got me thinking about what other scientific discoveries had been described as scientific gold rushes. When I “googled” the term, I found the most interesting search result was the idea of a genetic gold rush. Critics have coined the term “genetic gold rush” to describe the trend of big companies getting the discovery of genes patented. These patents require that any researcher using a patented gene to pay the company who “owns” the gene. Scientists and critics argue that discoveries should not be patented. They argue that only inventions base off of the knowledge of those discoveries should be patented. Scientists recognize that genes are “products of nature” and people should not get credit for discovering products of nature. The idea that patents should only be for ideas that are inventions is a type of mindset. It has been stated that patents of genes will give too much power to individuals, which will unbeneficial for research, patients, or society (Church of Scotland).

Particular companies, such as Myriad, own the rights to genes that can identify if a person is genetically predisposed to get cancer. Myriad owns the rights to the genes that are connected to breast and ovarian cancer; therefore, if a woman wants to be tested for this specific gene, she must pay Myriad and because Myriad is the sole owner of the gene, a monopoly is formed. Not only does this cause the cost to have the test performed to be high, it also means that a woman cannot get a second opinion. It is also thought that in the future doctors may be able to use DNA chips to identify 15000 genes with a sample of blood.  This technique may not be possible if this broadness of patents continues in the future. This is because if different companies have patents on a majority of the genes that are recognized by the DNA chip, then paying all the companies their rights for the genes will get very expensive (ABC 2002).

This video shows an interview of both David Koepsell and Gene Quinn.  Koepsell is the author of Who Owns You? His book describes the disadvantages of allowing companies to purchase patents on genes and the breadth of the patent rights. Quinn is a US patent attorney and talks about the necessity of patenting genes. Both men agree that the breadth of patent rights needs to be reformed. Quinn describes the current patent system as a “one size fits all” system that needs to be reformed so it better meets the needs of genetics and new science and technology. The patents are needed so that companies can get funding for research. Koepsell argues that patents cause the problems that were described in the previous paragraph (Flanders 2009). This interview represents the two-cultures model, which was originally defined as the differences between scientists and artists. In this instance, the two-cultures are critics of patents and large corporations. The critics observe patents from the standpoint of a researcher, or a patient, while the large corporations see it with respect to business.  

It has been reported by the LA Times that there are more than 2,000 patents in place and more than 25,000 patent applications pending for human genes (LA Times 2000). It seems that upstream public engagement would have been useful before allowing all these patents to be produced. Upstream public engagement encourages the involvement of the public when policies and decisions are in the process of being created. Because the action of patenting genes directly affects the public and their well being, it seems that it would only be fair to include the public’s opinion for policy making. It also seems that it would have been easier to reform the policies on patents for the human genome before patents were granted, rather than waiting until after there are patents already in place.  

References

Pinch, T. (1994). Cold Fusion and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. Essays in the Study of Scientific Discourse, 73.

Flanders, L. (Interviewer), Koepsell, D. (Interviewee), Quinn, G. (Interviewee). (2009). GIRT tv: Who Owns You? Corporations Patenting Your Genes. Retrieved from blip.tv website: http://blip.tv/grittv/grittv-who-owns-you-corporations-patenting-your-genes-2791141

ABC (2002). Genetic Gold Rush. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s510318.htm

Church of Scotland. Genetic Gold Rush. Retrieved from http://archive.srtp.org.uk/pmpres2.htm

LA Times (2000). Taming Gene-Patent ‘Gold Rush.’ Retrieved from Los Angeles Times website: http://articles.latimes.com/2000/may/22/local/me-32807

Quantum Dots

Jeniffer Kuzma begins her analysis of nanotechnology by discussing how many people believe that nanotechnology will improve the life of humans. I was curious as to how this may be true and in my research I found that there are studies of how nanoparticles may be used to diagnose and treat cancer. These particles are called quantum dots, which are crystalline nanoparticles that can be attached to proteins and receptors. In doing so, it is possible for scientists to see which molecules the protein interacts with, its location, and the signaling pathways that it utilizes. This can help scientists determine when cancer present. 

These nanoparticles can also be used to "tag" cancer cells, so scientists can see exactly where the problem exists. Also, because quantum dots are more resistant to degradation than other optical probes, they can be used to observe the changes in cancer over longer periods of time. The hopes of the future are that they will not only be able to identify cancer, but also be able to treat it [1].

However, there are fears of the risks that are associated with quantum dots. A study has shown that the shells of the quantum dots can corrode, causing toxic contents to leach into the surroundings. A large fear is that the acidity of the human body would result in the quantum dot toxins being released in the body. The concern of scientists is that if the toxins are released into the body, they could accumulate over time, causing serious health issues. It is still uncertain whether or not the toxins do accumulate in the body over a long period of time. Scientists are looking into ways to possibly lessen the risk of the quantum dot toxicity by either making the shells of the particles more resistant to corrosion, or by making the metal toxins inside the particles less toxic to humans [2].

If more studies are done proving the usefulness and practicality of using quantum dots in diagnosing and treating cancer and it is found that the toxicity of them can be managed, then I believe this would be a great breakthrough in science.  Quantum dots have the potential to change the way many diseases are treated and allow scientists to gain a better understanding about the way cells interact in the body. 

[1] Press Release, University of California, www.understandingnano.com/quantum-dots-locating-cancer-tumor.htm 

[2] Scientists Eye Risks of Quantum Dots, http://www.physorg.com/news152797334.html