Though deciphering the entire human genetic blueprint is still a few years away, scientists have begun laying claim to the stretches of DNA whose codes they have succeeded in cracking. In recent years researchers have flooded the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office with applications for thousands of genes and gene fragments--and they have stirred a lot of controversy in the process.
(1) The biggest problem with patenting genes is that while scientists have at least a general idea of what specific strands of genetic coding do, often it's just that--general. Investigators do sometimes succeed in isolating a single, crisp gene with a single known function. Often, however, researchers trying to map genes get no further than marking off fragmentary stretches of DNA that may be thousands of bases in length. (2) These so-called expressed sequence tags may have real genetic information embedded in them, but determining where those nuggets are and what their structure is takes more digging.
Geneticists have lately been filing patent applications for these ESTs anyway, figuring that it's best to protect their turf now and go spelunking(探索洞穴) around in it later. In a science that prizes precision above all else, this can be an odd way to do business. "I would guess that in many cases the scientists didn't even examine all the material," says Bruce Lehman, commissioner or the Patent and Trademark Office.
Not only can such filings be sloppy genetics, they can also be bad business. EST applications may lead to so-called submarine patents, claims that are made today and then vanish, only to reappear when some unsuspecting scientist finds something useful to do with genes hidden in the patent. To prevent this, Lehman requires that EST applications include no more than 10 genetic sequences. Each 10 after that requires a separate application--and a separate filing fee. "Companies will now have an incentive to file more selective applications," says Lehman.
(3) More troubling than determining how to patent the genome is the larger question of whether anyone ought to be laying claim to human DNA at all. This is partly an economic issue. If the entire genetic schematic(图表) is preemptively owned by the research teams studying it now, where is the incentive for independent scientists--often sources of great innovation to work on it later? Licensing cost, warns Jeffrey Kahn, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Bioethics, could hold medical progress hostage. (4) Patenting proponents insist that an equally persuasive argument could be made that the large genome-mapping groups need patent protection to make their work worthwhile to them.
Stickier than the economic question is the ethical one. Most of us reflexively shrink from the idea of anyone's owning the rights to any part of the human form. Besides, if the first anatomist to spot, say, the pancreas(胰) was not granted title to it, why should modem genome-mapping scientists be able to claim even a single gene? As Kahn points out, "You could patent a system for mining gold from ore. We don't let people patent the gold". (5) That kind of argument is grounded not in law but in the very idea of what it means to be human an issue that even the highest federal court is not likely to settle.
参考答案
1.申请基因专利的最大问题就是当科学家们对于基因编码的特定股起什么作用至少有一个大体想法时，它常常就只是大体上的。
2.这些所谓的已表达的序列标签可能携带有真正的基因信息，但确定这些小块在什么地方及它们的结构是什么样子需要更多的挖掘探究。
3.比确定如何申请基因组专利更令人烦恼的是一个更大的问题——任何人到底该不该对人类DNA提出专利要求。
4.专利申请者的支持者坚持说，他们可以提出同样有说服力的理由，即进行基因组绘制工作的大型团体需要专利保护以使他们的工作对他们来说是值得的。
5.这种论点不是立足于法律，而是立足于对做人意味着什么的理解上——这是一个连联邦最高法院都不太可能解决的问题。