一项最新的研究结果显示，目前能够被清楚识别出的将近2.4万种人类基因中，有20％都已经在美国获得了专利。申请专利的主要是一些私人公司和大学院校。

    据美国《国家地理》杂志10月13日报道，这项研究被发表在本周最新一期的《科学》杂志上，它首次向人们展示出了一张说明美国人类基因专利权现状的详图。

    研究人员能够对人类基因申请专利是因为基因是具有潜在价值的研究工具，在诊断测试中具有很大的作用，另外研究人员还可利用人类基因发现和生产出新的药物。

    此项研究参与者之一、美国马萨诸塞州科技研究院的经济及科学教授菲奥纳·莫里对此表示：“对很多人来说，在美国的专利申请体系中，人类的DNA像其它一些普通化学产品一样被对待或许是件让人感到惊讶的事情。”

    莫里说：“如果一位发明者确定了某种基因的新用途，那这个单独的DNA序列就能和从植物里提纯出的某种新药一样，以相同的方式获得专利权。”

    基因专利是上世纪八九十年代生物科技繁荣发展的重要体现。1978年左右，人类生长基因组获得了最早的基因专利权批准。进入21世纪后，随着人类基因组计划的完成，又涌现出了大量新的遗传信息和众多新的人类基因专利。

    这项最新研究结果显示，有超过4000种的人类基因，即目前能够被识别的将近2.4万种人类基因中的20％，已经在美国获得了专利，被视为知识产权。在已经获得专利权的基因中，大约63％归属于私人公司，28％归属于大学院校。其中，享有人类基因专利权最多的是美国Incyte制药公司，其享有的专利权覆盖了2000种人类基因。

    对此，莫里教授表示，基因专利权给它的所有者带来了基于这种基因某些新用途的财产权。举例来说，在对新药物的效果进行的测试中，或者在生产有治疗能力的蛋白质的过程中都涉及到了基因专利权。

    人类基因组这一特殊的区域也成为了申请专利权的“热点”。按照不同的应用方法，某些基因甚至有多达20项的专利权。对此，莫里说道：“基本上说，那些人们认为和疾病有关系的基因，如和老年痴呆症或癌症相关的基因，比那些有些神秘性质的基因更容易被申请专利。”

    然而，对于基因专利权对科学研究以及商业投资产生的影响，社会上还存在着很大的争议。美国有关人士认为，基因是复杂的有机分子，当把基因从它所在的染色体上分离并提纯后，它们就符合作为化合物申请专利的条件。此观点的支持者认为，和所有的专利权一样，基因专利权通过让公众知晓基因序列的重要作用，从而促进了新想法的公开和传播。同时，基因专利权也向投资者们提供了重要的投资动机。

    但是，一些批评人士则警告说，基因专利权过于宽泛，专利保护的范围太大将不利于研究人员对已经享有专利的基因进行创新研究。如果在一个研究领域中涉及到了很多已经享有专利权的基因，那么科学家在基因专利权上的付出——包括财政方面和其它方面，将非常之高。

    A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities.

    The study, which is reported this week in the journal Science, is the first time that a detailed map has been created to match patents to specific physical locations on the human genome.

    Researchers can patent genes because they are potentially valuable research tools, useful in diagnostic tests or to discover and produce new drugs.

    "It might come as a surprise to many people that in the U.S. patent system human DNA is treated like other natural chemical products," said Fiona Murray, a business and science professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, and a co-author of the study.

    "An isolated DNA sequence can be patented in the same manner that a new medicine, purified from a plant, could be patented if an inventor identifies a [new] application."

    Gene patents were central to the biotech boom of the 1980s and 1990s. The earliest gene patents were obtained around 1978 on the gene for human growth hormone.

    The human genome project and the introduction of rapid sequencing techniques brought a deluge of new genetic information and many new patents. Yet there has been little comprehensive research about the extent of gene patenting.

    The new study reveals that more than 4,000 genes, or 20 percent of the almost 24,000 human genes, have been claimed in U.S. patents.

    Of the patented genes, about 63 percent are assigned to private firms and 28 percent are assigned to universities.

    The top patent assignee is Incyte, a Palo Alto, California-based drug company whose patents cover 2,000 human genes.

    "Gene patents give their owners property rights over gene sequences—for example in a diagnostic test, as a test for the efficacy of a new drug, or in the production of therapeutic proteins," Murray said.

    "While this does not quite boil down to [the patent holders] owning our genes ... these rights exclude us from using our genes for those purposes that are covered in the patent," she said.

    Specific regions of the human genome are "hot spots" of patent activity. Some genes have up to 20 patents asserting rights to how those genes can be used.

    "Basically those genes that people think are relevant in disease, such as Alzheimer's or cancer, are more likely to be patented than genes which are something of a mystery," Murray said.

    The effect of gene patenting on research and investment has been the subject of great debate.

    Advocates argue that gene patents, like all patents, promote the disclosure and dissemination of ideas by making important uses of gene sequences publicly known.

    Patents also provide important incentives to investors who would otherwise be reluctant to invest in ideas that could be copied by competitors.

    But critics caution that patents that are very broad can obstruct future innovations by preventing researchers from looking for alternative uses for a patented gene.

    "You can find dozens of ways to heat a room besides the Franklin stove, but there's only one gene to make human growth hormone," said Robert Cook-Deegan, director of Duke University's Center for Genome Ethics, Law, and Policy.

    "If one institution owns all the rights, it may work well to introduce a new product, but it may also block other uses, including research," he said.

    In cases where there are a lot of patents surrounding one area of research, the scientific costs of gene patents—financial and otherwise—can be extremely high.