The dangers of (genetic) diagnostic monopolies

Source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7237/full/458405a.html

Nature published an interesting commentary on the role of patents in genetic testing that was authored last week by several faculty from Duke University. At first intrigued, I was fairly disappointed with the lack of data presented in the article (I guess that’s the difference between a paper and a commentary) but more by the lack of a strong call to action.

The authors discussed a study that showed how unlike pharmaceuticals, the pricing and availability of genetic tests seem to be unaffected by patents. The authors then went on to posit that the key problem with pricing is not IP but the lack of insurance coverage for genetic testing. “Prices would matter less if everyone in the United States were insured for genetic diagnostic tests.” This is a rather dangerous statement to make, especially given the blooming cost of both direct health care and insurance.

Ok, so it all boils down to mutually blocking patents. We see this today in the software industry where the industry giants have enough cross-blocking patents that if the lawyers had their way it would have erupted into a legal bloodbath a while ago. Thankfully, MAD apparently works. The weird thing with genetic testing patents is that biotech-related patents are a lot clearer and easier to enforce than software parents, even though these same companies tend to patent technology in a more focused manner. The question is: what happens next? Do we see widespread patent cross-licensing? Do the legal departments start to flex their muscles? Its a complicated issue. The authors say that universities need to be more transparent about the patents they license out and to whom. while I agree that transparency is the first step towards unraveling the cross-blocking quagmire, there really needs to be more responsible action by Universities in licensing their discoveries and inventions.

IP is really in a sorry state these days in the US. I think its time the open-source movement hit health care.