Australian
Screen

Teacher’s notes

provided by

This clip shows Dr Graeme Suthers, a genetic pathologist, and Dr Mervyn Jacobson, founder and executive chairman of Genetic Technologies, a company that owns patents for the use of so-called 'junk DNA’, expressing opposing views on the patenting of this material. Dr Suthers argues that in the interests of all people, these materials should be widely available while Dr Jacobson defends his company’s position, explaining that the patents do not confer ownership of 'junk DNA’ itself but rather the methods for using that DNA in research.

Educational value points

• The views expressed in this clip are part of a worldwide debate about the issue of patenting genetic research. While some scientists, such as Dr Suthers, believe that research that will benefit the community should be in the public domain, companies such as Genetic Technologies and pharmaceutical corporations argue that because they invest large amounts of money in medical research they need to benefit financially from their investment.

• DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid), a molecule found in all cells, carries genetic data and information that determine the structure and function of every component in the body, including height, eye colour and susceptibility to disease. The DNA molecule is composed of two complementary strands that form a twisted ladder shape called a double helix. The 'rungs’ of this 'ladder’ are built with the four-letter DNA alphabet A (Adenine), C (Cytosine), G (Guanine) and T (Thymine). These DNA sequences make up genes, most of which produce molecules called proteins that enable cells to perform their distinct functions.

• Gene patents may mean that the wider scientific community cannot obtain access to relevant research, thus hindering the development of treatments or cures for diseases such as breast cancer, HIV and Alzheimer’s. Genetic Technologies says that research institutions such as universities can use its 'invention’ or method for using junk DNA for a nominal one-off licence fee while a higher rate is charged to commercial enterprises such as pharmaceutical companies. Critics have questioned whether it is possible to patent DNA, arguing that genes are 'discovered’ and not 'invented’ and that these patents tend to treat humans as commodities.

• 'Junk DNA’ is the name given to DNA that seems to consist of meaningless sequences that do not 'code’ for proteins. When the human genome (genetic information inherited from parents) was mapped in 2001 it was found that genes make up about 3 per cent of the 2.9 billion letters of DNA code in the human body. Junk DNA, which is also referred to as non-coding DNA, makes up about 97 per cent of a human’s genome and 'separates’ genes. Until recently it was believed to serve no purpose.

• Non-coding DNA may provide a key to the diagnosis and cure of diseases. In the late 1980s immunologist Dr Malcolm Simons embarked on research to show that non-coding DNA sequences were not random but ordered. He believed that non-coding DNA might provide markers that could indicate whether genetic abnormalities were present and could work as a diagnostic tool. In related research, a 2005 study by the University of California indicated that on an evolutionary level non-coding DNA might protect the integrity of species by resisting the incorporation of new mutations through acting as a decoy to absorb mutations that could otherwise damage vital genes.

• Non-coding DNA may influence the behaviour of the coding DNA. Professor John Mattick, a molecular geneticist at the University of Queensland, building on Dr Simons’s work, believes that non-coding DNA forms a complex operating system that coordinates the functions of all parts of the genome. It is possible that non-coding DNA may 'tell’ the coding DNA what proteins to create. The Catalyst program Genius of Junk suggested that 'the “genius” of so-called “junk” may be its ability to organise and arrange the very building blocks of life’.

• In the mid-1990s Dr Simons and his business partner, Dr Mervyn Jacobson, patented the use of non-coding DNA in every living organism. Simons and Jacobson set up the company Genetic Technologies in 1989 to develop Simons’s theory that non-coding DNA might help in the diagnosis and cure of diseases. The patents give Genetic Technologies, for a specific period of time, the sole right to make use of or sell the 'non-coding sequence invention’, which refers to the methods devised by Dr Simons for using non-coding DNA. The company says it does not 'own’ DNA itself, but rather the 'methods for deducing information from the genome by looking for patterns’ in non-coding DNA (www.dna-id.com.au).

• Patents on the use of genes may affect the cost of health products and restrict their availability by giving a company a monopoly. Myriad Genetics, a US company that holds the Australian patent for a breast cancer gene known as BRCA1, signed a deal with Genetic Technologies giving the latter exclusive rights in Australia and New Zealand to test for mutations in BRCA1 and the other breast cancer gene, BRCA2. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia is concerned that the granting of an exclusive licence allows companies to charge high prices for their services, making potentially vital tests too expensive for many people.