CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME
Yıl: 2021 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 20 Sayfa Aralığı: 205 - 242 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-01-2022
CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME
Öz: Yirminci yüzyıl sonlarına kadar uzun yıllar canlı varlıkların patentlenemeyeceği düşünülmüşken, 1970’lerden itibaren Amerikan mah-kemelerinde biyolojik materyaller için yapılan patent başvuruları lehine alınan tarihî kararlar sonucunda, bu durum değişmiştir. Bilimsel olarak yapılamaz olanlar laboratuvarlarda yapılabilir hale geldikçe, ticarî başvuru ve hukukî kararlarda, mikroorganizmalardan insana doğru, giderek daha ileri gidilmiştir. Öyle ki tıp ve biyoteknoloji tarihinden de görüleceği üzere; Chakrabarty vakasında genetik mühendislik ürünü bakteriler, OnkoFare ve koyun Dolly vakalarında transgenez ve klonlama ürünü hayvanlar, bir hücre hattının söz konusu olduğu Moore vakasında ve de güncel BRCA1/2 gen patentleri davasında ise insan bedeninin parçaları patentlenmiş ya da patent konusu olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, biyolojik (genetik) materyallerin patentlenişine dair ABD patent hukukundan tarihte birer dönüm noktası teşkil etmiş olan bazı emsal kararlar yeniden gözden geçirilmiş, yanı sıra Avrupa Birliği ve Türk (genetik) patent mevzuatına değinilmiş, ardından bu tür patentler lehine işleyen hukukî süreç, insan bedeninin ticarî patentlenebilirliği aleyhinde argümanlarla, (biyo)etik açıdan değerlendirilmiştir. Hukukî ve malî gerekçeleri olsa da, gen patentlerinin aynı zamanda patentlenen genler üzerinde başkalarınca yapılabilecek araştırmaları engellemek suretiyle bilimsel, diyagnostik genetik testlere ve bağımsız doğrulama testlerine erişimi kısıtlamak suretiyle klinik, ve insan bedeninin metalaştırılması cihetiyle de biyoetik sakıncaları vardır.
Anahtar Kelime: CHAKRABARTY, MOORE, AND THE HUMAN GENES BRCA1/2: THE LEGAL HISTORY OF GENETIC PATENTING IN THE US, THE REGULATIONS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY, AND A BIOETHICAL ASSESSMENT)
Öz: While living subject matters were long regarded as unpatentable until the late 20th century, this has changed with a series of rulings by American courts in favor of applications for patenting biological material since the 1970s. As the scientifically unfeasible continued to become feasible in the laboratory, the norms were further challenged in those commercial applications and the subsequent legal decisions, the scope of which has gradually expanded from microorganisms to the human body, given that patents were filed or granted for genetically engineered bacteria in the Chakrabarty case, transgenic and cloned animals in the cases of OncoMouse and Dolly the sheep, and parts of the human body as a cell line in the Moore case and the BRCA1/2 genes in recent litigation during the intertwined history of medicine and biotechnology. In this study, we reviewed landmark decisions from the US patent legislation affirming the patentability of biological (genetic) subject matters, as well as touching upon the European Union and Turkish (genetic) patent regulations, and (bio)ethically criticized the historical legal process that has evolved into allowing such patents, with arguments against the commercial patentability of the human body. Besides their legal and financial justifications, gene patents also have scientific, clinical, and bioethical drawbacks, including stymieing research by others on the patented genes, restricting access to diagnostic genetic tests and independent confirmatory tests, and entailing commodification of the human body.
Anahtar Kelime: Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Bibliyografik
- Askland A, ‘Patenting genes: a fast and furious primer’ (2003) 17 (2) The International Journal of Applied Philosophy 267–275
- Australia Law Reform Commission; Australian Health Ethics Committee [Avustralya Hukuk Reformu Komisyonu; Avustralya Sağlık Etiği Komitesi] Essentially Yours: The Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia (ALRC Report 96) (Southwood Press Pty Ltd., Sydney 2003) 526–527
- Baranzke H, Batı’daki Biyomedikal Etik Tartışmalarında Özerklik ve İnsanlık Onuru Çev: M. Kemal Temel (BETİM İstanbul 2017)
- Beauchamp TL, Childress JF, Biyomedikal Etik Prensipleri Çev: M. Kemal Temel (BETİM 2017)
- Belluck P, ‘Chinese scientist who says he edited babies’ genes defends his work’ The New York Times 28.11.2018 Erişim: <www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/world/asia/gene-editing-babies-hejiankui.html> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Brennan AA, ‘Patentability of micro-organisms, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980)’ (1981) 14 (2) The Akron Law Review 341–349
- Brito CSS, ‘Does patent granting hinder the development of gene therapy products?’ in Jörg Niewohner, Christof Tannert (eds.) Gene Therapy: Prospective Technology Assessment in its Societal Context (Elsevier, Amsterdam 2006) 159–180
- Carlson B, ‘Surprise District Court ruling invalidates Myriad Genetics’ BRCA patents, but appeal is pending’ (2010) 7 (2) Biotechnology Healthcare 8–9
- Caulfield T, Gold ER and Cho MK, ‘Patenting human genetic material: refocusing the debate’ (2000) 1 (3) Nature Reviews Genetics 227– 231
- __________ ‘Rules of genome access’ (2000) 404 (6776) Nature 317
- __________, ‘The human genome itself must be freely available to all humankind’ (2000) 404 (6776) Nature 325
- __________, ‘US/UK statement on genome data prompts debate on ‘free access’’ (2000) 404 (6776) Nature 324–325
- Caulfield T and von Tigerstrom B, ‘Gene patents, health care policy and licensing schemes’ (2006) 24 (6) Trends in Biotechnology 251– 254
- Cho MK, Illangasekare S, Weaver MA, Leonard DGB and Merz JF, ‘Effects of patents and licenses on the provision of clinical genetic testing services’ (2003) 5 (1) The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics 3–8
- Cole P, ‘Patentability of genes: a European Union perspective’ (2015) 5 (5) Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Medicine a020891
- Cook-Deegan R, Derienzo C, Carbone J and Chandrasekharan S, Heaney C, Conover C, ‘Impact of gene patents and licensing practices on access to genetic testing for inherited susceptibility to cancer: comparing breast and ovarian cancers with colon cancers’(2010) 12 (4, ek) Genetics in Medicine S15–S38
- Cook-Deegan R and Heaney C, ‘Patents in genomics and human genetics’(2010) (11) The Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics 383–425
- Cummings LA and Magnusson R, ‘Genetic privacy and academic medicine: the Oregon experience’ (2001) 76 (11) Academic Medicine 1089–1093
- De Witte JI and Ten Have H, ‘Ownership of genetic material and information’ (1997) 45 (1) Social Science & Medicine 51–60
- Decision Resources Inc. The SAGE Handbook of Healthcare: Global Policies, Business Opportunities, Scientific Developments (SAGE Publications Londra 2008).
- Dorney MS, ‘Moore v. the Regents of the University of California: balancing the need for biotechnology innovation against the right of informed consent’ (1990) 5 (2) The Berkeley Technology Law Journal 333–369
- Dülger M. ‘Homo commoditus: ‘sahip olmak, genetik metalar ve fikri mülkiyet’ (2014) LXXII (1) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 507–530
- Dyer C, ‘US judge rules that patents on breast cancer genes are unlawful’(2010) 340 The British Medical Journal c1870
- Erduran YT, Yaşayan Organizma Üzerinde Patentin Biyotıp Etiği ve Hukuku Açısından İncelenmesi (1st edn. On İki Levha Yayıncılık İstanbul 2020)
- Ertin H, ‘Biyoteknolojik buluşların patentlenmesi ve yarattığı etik sorunlar’ in Ayşegül Demirhan Erdemir (edn.) 3. Uluslararası Tıp Etiği Kongresi Kongre Kitabı (Bursa 2003) 750-751
- Ertin H, ‘Gen teknolojileri ve tıpta patent sorunu’ (2010) (2) Hayat Sağlık: Sağlık ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 26–29
- Everett M, ‘The ‘I’ in the gene: divided property, fragmented personhood, and the making of a genetic privacy law’(2007) 34 (2) American Ethnologist: Journal of the American Ethnological Society 375–386
- Everett M, ‘The social life of genes: privacy, property and the new genetics’(2003) 56 (1) Social Science & Medicine 53–65
- Fialho AM and Chakrabarty AM, ‘Patent controversies and court cases: cancer diagnosis, therapy and prevention’(2012) 13 (13) Cancer Biology & Therapy1229–1234
- Fowler C, ‘The Plant Patent Act of 1930: a sociological history of its creation’ (2000) 82 (9) The Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society 621–644
- Gold ER and Carbone J, ‘Myriad Genetics: in the eye of the policy storm’(2010) 12 (ek 4) Genetics in Medicine: Official Journal of the American College of Medical Genetics S39–S70
- Harris M, Winship I and Spriggs M, ‘Controversies and ethical issues in cancer-genetics clinics’ (2005) 6 (5) The Lancet Oncology 301– 310
- Haugen HM, ‘Intellectual property—rights or privileges’ (2005) 8 (4) The Journal of World Intellectual Property 445–457
- Ikenson B, Patents: Ingenious Inventions, How They Work and How They Came to Be (Black Dog & Leventhal 2004)
- Kaya A, ‘Türk hukukunda patentten doğan haklar’(1997) LV (4) İstanbul Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Mecmuası 173–200
- Kers JG, van Burg E, Stoop T and Cornel MC, ‘Trends in genetic patent applications: the commercialization of academic intellectual property’ (2014) 22 (10) The European Journal of Human Genetics, 1-5
- Kevles DJ, ‘Ananda Chakrabarty wins a patent: biotechnology, law, and society, 1972–1980’ (1994) 25 (1) Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 111–135
- Lee C, ‘Cease or persist? Gene patents and the clinical diagnostics dilemma’ EliScholar: A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale 2012 Erişim: <https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/applebaum_ award/3> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Mann KP, ‘Gene patents: perspectives from the clinical laboratory’(2010) 14 (3) Molecular Diagnosis & Therapy 137–140
- Mayor S, ‘First UK patents for cloning issued to creators of Dolly the sheep’ (2000) 320 (7230) The British Medical Journal 270
- McLellan D, ‘John Moore, 56; sued to share profits from his cells’ The Los Angeles Times, (13.10.2001)
- Merz JF and Cho MK, ‘What are gene patents and why are people worried about them?’ (2005) 8 (4) Community Genetics 203–208
- Mutlu A, ‘Türkiye’de gen dizilerinin patentlenebilirliği’ Fikri Mülkiyet (18.8.2020), Erişim: <https://fikrimulkiyet.com/turkiyede-gendizilerinin-patentlenebilirligi> Erişim tarihi 19.12.2020
- Narayanan N, ‘Patenting of human genetic material v. bioethics: revisiting the case of John Moore v. Regents of the University of California’ (2010) 7 (2) The Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 82–89
- Odman Boztosun A, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku ile Rekabet Hukukunun Teknolojik Yeniliklerin Teşvikindeki Rolü (Seçkin Yayınevi Ankara 2002)
- Palsson G, Anthropology and the New Genetics (New Departures in Anthropology) (Cambridge University Press Cambridge 2007)
- Paslı A and Arslan MH, ‘COVID-19 salgını ve patent hukuku: salgın nedeniyle patentli buluş, üçüncü kişilerce hak sahibinin rızası olmaksızın kullanılabilir mi?’ (IPR Gezgini, 28.4.2020), Erişim: <https://iprgezgini.org/2020/04/28/covid-19-salgini-ve-patent-hukuku> Erişim tarihi: 19.12.2020
- Rettner R, ‘4 ways the gene patent ruling affects you’ Live Science (16.4.2013), Erişim: <www.livescience.com/28745-gene-patent-patienteffects.html> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Rosenfeld J and Mason CE, ‘Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome’(2013) (5) Genome Medicine 1-7
- Servick K, ‘Controversial U.S. bill would lift Supreme Court ban on patenting human genes’ Science (4.6.2019) Erişim: <www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/06/controversial-us-bill-would-liftsupreme-court-ban-patenting-human-genes> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Servick K, ‘No patent for Dolly the cloned sheep, court rules, adding to industry jitters’ Science, (14.5.2014) Erişim: <www. sciencemag.org/news/2014/05/no-patent-dolly-cloned-sheep-court-rulesadding-industry-jitters> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Sherman E, ‘Chinese researchers claim to have genetically engineered the first HIV-immune babies’ Fortune (26.11.2018), Erişim: <http://fortune.com/2018/11/26/chinese-researchers-genetic-engineeringbabies-crispr-hiv> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Sprinkle RH, Profession of Conscience: The Making and Meaning of Life-Sciences Liberalism (Princeton University Press Princeton 1994)
- Street J, ‘New technologies: ethics of genomics’in Heggenhougen K. (edn.) International Encyclopedia of Public Health (Elsevier Amsterdam 2008) 528–532
- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, ‘Patents, medicine, and the interests of patients: applying general principles to gene patenting’ (2003) 80 (1) International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics: the Official Organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 93–98
- The European Society of Human Genetics Working Party on Patenting and Licensing [Avrupa İnsan Genetiği Derneği, Patent ve Lisanslara Dair Çalışma Grubu], ‘Patenting and licensing in genetic testing’ (2008) 16 (4) The European Journal of Human Genetics 405–411
- The United States Patent and Trademark Office [ABD Patent ve Marka Dairesi], ‘Report to Congress, September 2015: Report on Confirmatory Genetic Diagnostic Test Activity’ Erişim: <www.uspto. gov/sites/default/files/documents/USPTO_Report_on_Confirmatory_Ge netic_DiagnosticTest_Activity.pdf > Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- The World Intellectual Property Organization [Dünya Fikri Mülkiyet Örgütü], ‘Bioethics and patent law: the case of the OncoMouse’(2006) (3) WIPO Magazine, Erişim: <www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/ en/2006/03/article_0006.html> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- United States Patent 135245, Pasteur L, ‘Improvement in brewing beer and ale’ erişim: <www.google.com/patents/US135245> erişim tarihi 10.10.2020
- United States Patent 4259444, Chakrabarty AM, ‘Microorganisms having multiple compatible degradative energy-generating plasmids and preparation thereof’ Erişim: <https://patents.google.com/patent/ US4259444> Erişim tarihi 10.10.2020
- United States Patent 4438032, Golde DW and Quan SG, ‘Unique T-lymphocyte line and products derived therefrom’ Erişim: <www.google.com/patents/US4438032> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- United States Patent 4736866, Harvard College, ‘Transgenic nonhuman mammals’ Erişim: <www.google.com/patents/US4736866> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- United States Patent 5654155, Murphy PD, Allen AC, Alvares CP, Critz BS, Olson SJ, Schelter DB, Zeng B, ‘Consensus sequence of the human BRCA1 gene’ Erişim: <https://patents.google.com/ patent/US5654155> Erişim tarihi: 10.10.2020
- Yusufoğlu F, Patent Verilebilirlik Şartları (İstanbul, T.C. Galatasaray Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Özel Hukuk Anabilim Dalı Doktora Tezi, 2008)
- __________, “Ex parte Latimer,” Decisions of the Commissioner of Patents and of United States Courts in Patent Cases together with an Opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States upon the Construction of the Articles of the International Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property in relation to Caveats. Compiled from the Official Gazette of the United States Patent Office for the Year 1889 (Government Printing Office, Washington DC/ABD 1890)
- __________, ‘Man-made organisms receive patent protection, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 100 S. Ct. 2204 (1980)’ (1981) 59 (1) The Washington University Law Review 261–271
| APA | Ertin H, Temel M, Metin S, KARAMAN M (2021). CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. , 205 - 242. |
| Chicago | Ertin Hakan,Temel Mustafa Kemal,Metin Sevtap,KARAMAN MUHAMMET CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. (2021): 205 - 242. |
| MLA | Ertin Hakan,Temel Mustafa Kemal,Metin Sevtap,KARAMAN MUHAMMET CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. , 2021, ss.205 - 242. |
| AMA | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. . 2021; 205 - 242. |
| Vancouver | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. . 2021; 205 - 242. |
| IEEE | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M "CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME." , ss.205 - 242, 2021. |
| ISNAD | Ertin, Hakan vd. "CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME". (2021), 205-242. |
| APA | Ertin H, Temel M, Metin S, KARAMAN M (2021). CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi, 10(20), 205 - 242. |
| Chicago | Ertin Hakan,Temel Mustafa Kemal,Metin Sevtap,KARAMAN MUHAMMET CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi 10, no.20 (2021): 205 - 242. |
| MLA | Ertin Hakan,Temel Mustafa Kemal,Metin Sevtap,KARAMAN MUHAMMET CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi, vol.10, no.20, 2021, ss.205 - 242. |
| AMA | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi. 2021; 10(20): 205 - 242. |
| Vancouver | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME. Tıp Hukuku Dergisi. 2021; 10(20): 205 - 242. |
| IEEE | Ertin H,Temel M,Metin S,KARAMAN M "CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME." Tıp Hukuku Dergisi, 10, ss.205 - 242, 2021. |
| ISNAD | Ertin, Hakan vd. "CHAKRABARTY, MOORE VE İNSAN GENLERİ BRCA1/2: ABD’DE GEN PATENTLERİNİN HUKUKÎ GEÇMİŞİ, AVRUPA BİRLİĞİ VE TÜRKİYE’DEKİ DÜZENLEMELER VE BİR BİYOETİK DEĞERLENDİRME". Tıp Hukuku Dergisi 10/20 (2021), 205-242. |
