 |
| The DNA double helix ©- (AFP) |
A fierce legal battle over the patent for a
revolutionary gene-editing technique played out Tuesday in a US court, with
billions of dollars at stake.
The tool called CRISPR-Cas9 -- hailed as faster,
cheaper and more accurate than current gene-snipping methods -- holds fabulous
promise for applications in medicine and agriculture.
It is to genetics what word processors meant as
progress compared to typewriters.
In one corner of the fight are two women
regularly considered possible candidates for a Nobel prize: French
microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin and
biochemist Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley.
Opposing them is Feng Zhang, a leading light at
the Broad Institute, a research facility affiliated with Harvard University and
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Both sides claim to have developed CRISPR-Cas9.
It allows scientists to edit, with pinpoint accuracy, stretches of the genome
by removing, adding or changing pieces of the DNA sequence.
Major medical labs and biotechnology companies
see the technique as having stunning potential.
But critics worry over ethical concerns, such as
changing DNA within reproductive cells, because these tweaks will be passed on
from generation to generation.
The three scientists were represented by lawyers
at the court in Alexandria, Virginia for a hearing that lasted less than 50
minutes.
 |
Biochemist
Jennifer Doudna of the University of California, Berkeley: Science magazine
names CRISPR 'Breakthrough of the Year' | University of California
|
There is broad agreement that Charpentier and
Doudna -- winners of many prizes in the past four years -- discovered this
gene-editing technique that has raised so many hopes.
Their work was published in the journal Science
in June 2012. But they described using CRISPR with simple organisms such as
bacteria. They filed for a patent in May 2012.
The Broad Institute, with Zhang, filed a patent
request in December 2012 for a successful test of CRISPR with eukaryotes --
more advanced organisms whose cells contain a nucleus with a membrane.
This step forward opened up vast possibilities
for extending gene-editing to human cells.
The question before the three-judge panel Tuesday
was whether Zhang benefited from the discovery of the other two scientists or
was actually responsible for moving CRISPR forward as a technology.
"Dr Zhang had already started to work on it
prior to" the publication of his rivals' work, said Steven Trybus, lawyer
for the Broad Institute.
Quoting an interview that she gave, Trybus said
Doudna "experienced many frustrations trying to get it in human
cells."
A lawyer for the other side sought to dismiss any
suggestion that his clients had failed.
Todd Walters, a lawyer for the University of
California, said Doudna has granted hundreds of interviews and "there is
no statement in the record that she believed that it wouldn't work in
eukaryotic cells."
What will the judges do to attribute paternity
for the discovery of the century in biotechnology?
They can decide that one side wins it all, or
split things up by assigning some patents to both sides.
No decision is expected for weeks. But either way, CRISPR-Cas9 is destined to keep the world of genetics abuzz for a long time.
 |
| French microbiologist Emmanuelle Charpentier attends a ceremony for the Doctors Honoris Causa honorary degrees, at the KU Leuven university in Belgium, in February 2016 ©Yorick Jansens (Belga/AFP) |
Originally published on Daily Mail UK
No comments :
Post a Comment