Meningitis patent move sparks outcry

Scientists fear companies snapping up living organisms could delay research

An American biotechnology company has applied to patent the genetic sequence of various bacteria, including one which can cause the deadly disease meningitis.

If the application is granted, it will be the first time the genetic make-up of a whole living organism has been patented. But the prospect has raised alarm among scientists and disease sufferers, who fear the move could open the floodgates for anyone to cash in on living organisms and delay research by years.

Patenting a bacterium would give a company the right to charge royalties to anyone else researching a vaccine. This would push up the cost of research, much of which is funded by charitable donations.

The American company Human Genome Sciences has filed three applications, each the size of a telephone directory, with the European Patent Office. The company is hoping to be the first to own the whole genetic sequence of several bacteria, including haemophilus influenzae which can cause meningitis.

Previously, scientists had restricted themselves to patenting individual genes or biological processes. Patenting the entire genetic make-up of a living organism has until now been unacceptable on legal grounds because of difficulties in proving these elements of unique discovery and new uses.

Stuart Wilmott, 47, whose son Simon died sixteen months ago, said the thought of businesses cashing in on the virus made him sick to the stomach.

He joined medical experts and charities in condemning Human Genome Sciences.

'Bad effect on research'

Professor John Heckles of Southampton University, who is currently researching the most dangerous meningococcal strain of meningitis, said: "The bottom line is this could have a profoundly bad effect on research into the development of new vaccines.

"We are looking at a situation where people will not be able to do research on new treatments."

Alistair Kent, Director of the Genetic Interest Group -- a charity representing people with genetic diseases and conditions -- thinks the chances of this latest application being successful are slim.

"I think it's extremely unlikely because I don't think that the knowledge available is sufficient for this company to claim an industrial application for the whole organism's genome," Mr Kent said.

Mr Kent cautions against misinformation on the issue of gene patenting: "Clearly, unrestricted patenting of gene sequences - if it were allowed - would be a bad thing.

"But it's important to strike a balance between that, and discouraging investment in the development of products for the treatment of genetic disease."

But Julia Warren, of the Meningitis Research Foundation, warned: "Once you give patents to living organisms you set a precedent and where is it going to stop?

"We already have an effective vaccine for haemphilus inflenzae. But every so often these vaccines have to be changed slightly. If the vaccine eventually needs a re-jig then there are implications of royalties having to be paid."

A European directive backing the idea that all life forms can be patented for profit will be the subject of a debate in the European Parliament next week.