Nature 407, 285 (2000), CorrespondenceAllowing gene patents could be an expensive mistake for the USSir ?In the discussion of gene patents1, it is generally overlookedthatthese primarily aim at the encoded protein and not the gene. Thediscovererstry to patent the use of the ‘gene product’ either as a therapeuticprotein, oras an intervention point (‘drug target’) to treat a disease.However, although the gene sequence provides necessary information ontheprotein structure, this information is insufficient, because the mRNAand theoriginal gene product, the protein, are modified in an unpredictable waydepending on the temporal and spatial context of their biosynthesis. Whocould have predicted the active form of insulin from its gene? Also, theco-receptor of HIV, CCR5, on which a controversial patent has beenissued2, appears to be a co-receptor for HIV only if it is modified byattachment of sulphate residues3. It is evident that, if a patent coversa ‘geneproduct’, it should only give rights on the predicted, unmodified form.Experimental evidence for the existence of the predicted function of thegeneproduct should be provided.What about patenting gene products as drug targets? The EU patentdirective states clearly that the human body and its components in theirnative environment cannot be covered by a patent. What is a drug targetother than a component of the human body in its native environment? Thisstatement can only mean that drug targets are not patentable in Europe,otherwise it would be nothing but a political declamation.There are other problems with patenting drug targets. Many drugs arestilldiscovered using animal model systems or cellular assays. In the UnitedStates, for example, the National Institutes of Health has a number ofscreening programmes using mice to detect anti-epileptic compounds, andcell cultures to detect cytotoxic compounds, where the molecular targetisunknown. If a scientist or a company discovers a drug using such anassay,they would be stupid to try to identify the drug target, because thereis somelikelihood that the drug target is already covered by a patent.Patenting drugtargets is therefore scientifically counterproductive: it enforces aculture of’not wanting to know’.Let’s assume that drug targets can be patented in the United States butnot inEurope. As a consequence drugs could be developed unrestrictedly inEurope but not in the United States. US companies would then be forcedtomove their drug discovery and development to Europe. Still these drugscould not be used in the United States. As a result patients would havetotravel from the United States to Europe to receive their life-savingdrug.What a great perspective for Europe’s biotechnology and economy!Hartmut MichelMax Planck Institut of Biophysics, Heinrich-Hoffmann-Strae 7, 60528Frankfurt am Main, GermanyReferences 1.Schiermeier, Q. Nature 406, 111 (2000).2.Smaglik, P. Nature 404, 322 (2000).3.Cormier, E. G. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5762-5767 (2000).첨부 파일과거 URLhttp://www.ipleft.or.kr/bbs/view.php?board=ipleft_5&id=70