| Blog Summary | My Profile | Contact

Summary


Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) was the diagnosis I received on November 1, 2005. I went into the clinic three months earlier because of a tightness in my chest, left side, resulting even from a short walk out to my car. Then the week before diagnosis I went in because of a strange bulge in the left side of my abdomen, felt when lying in bed on my back. Turned out to be a rather large spleen, later measured at 11cm below the rib cage.

Since then, my family and I have been through some trying times. And as a Naval Officer stationed overseas in the UK and with family and friends living throughout the world, including the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Japan and Australia, I decided early on that it would be easier to update everyone via a blog than by email or phone.

I tried, and resisted, Gleevec. I also tried Sprycel but I proved intolerant to it because my counts dropped as soon as I took more than 50mg daily (standard is 100 to 140 mg daily). So I turned to a bone marrow transplant, which I underwent November 31, 2007 at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA. I have since been dealing with chronic graft versus host disease (GVHD) issues with my GI tract (resolved), eyes, mouth, and now my lungs. The lung problem is pretty bad as I hve been diagnosed with bronchial obliterans and now have only 42 percent lung function and am on oxygen a great deal of the time.

But not to fear; I am hanging in there, keeping my spirits up and continuing with my life. Through this blog, people have followed my treatment plans through success and failures, various types of medical appointments and procedures, my fluctuating counts, etc. Besides information detailing my own experiences, I also try to include general aspects of CML, various forms of treatment and the experiences of a stem cell transplant.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Patents promote innovation

The following is the opposing view from USA Today, June 16, 2009. USA Today's view can be found as my previous posting.

Opposing View: Exclusive gene-based rights spur vital research and development

By Jim Greenwood

Can a gene be patented? The easy answer is this: Genes as they exist in nature cannot be patented. No one can patent a naturally occurring gene or protein as it exists in the body.

Here's where it becomes more complicated: Researchers can isolate a protein or DNA sequence that can help treat or potentially cure a disease, like cancer or heart disease, and they can patent this discovery. Many, if not most, human diseases have their roots in our genes. More than 4,000 diseases are suspected to stem from mutated genes inherited from one or both of our parents.

Armed with this knowledge, scientists have developed more than 200 innovative new therapies and vaccines that have helped extend and improve the quality of life for hundreds of millions of patients. Researchers, for example, located the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis, then used that knowledge to create therapies that have extended the average lifespan of a person who has CF from 12 years to more than 40.

Like all other patents, gene-based patents protect the intellectual property of a scientist, researcher or biotech company, spurring investment in research and development. The Patent and Trademark Office has strict guidelines on patents, including the patenting of DNA molecules or genetic material.

Two recent studies, from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a Department of Health and Human Services advisory committee, both confirm what a prior National Academy of Sciences report concluded: Patents do not hinder biomedical innovation. The HHS panel's study also found that patents are not the cause of access-related issues regarding genetic diagnostic tests, in particular.

Public debate over access to, and use of, genetic technology is a good thing. It requires the consideration of many factors, including coverage and cost, concerns over genetic discrimination and myriad regulatory issues.

Even so, banning patents on gene-related breakthroughs would slow biomedical innovation to a halt — taking away the hope biotechnology offers to patients suffering from debilitating diseases such as cancer, Parkinson's and HIV/AIDS — while doing nothing to address what is really a much more complicated set of issues.

Former representative Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., is president and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.

0 comments: