| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton): The Minister is right to signal the leading role that the United Kingdom
science base and UK-based scientists have played. I hope that the friendly relationship between President Clinton and Tony Blair is one in which the Prime Minister fully understands the implications of American policy. When I was a Minister with responsibility for science, when Dolly the sheep was cloned, the first call that I took was from the American special adviser on science to the President, who said that the President wanted quick answers to two questions: could the Americans steal the UK's scheme for a human genetics advisory commission, and why the hell did the Americans not do the science in their country?The Americans are going to watch very closely to see how the project unrolls, and will try to take a leading part in it. Can the Minister clarify the question of patents? Of course patents should not be taken out on the human genome project and its broad findings, but unless the biotechnology industry can patent applications and innovative steps, there will not be progress in the application of drugs and cures arising from the basic knowledge. That is an important distinction.
Can the Minister help to solve, not simply stress, the problems that we might have with the insurance industry and with employment? One of the exciting things to come out of the project is that people can move into areas of preventive care, and can understand a little about how they might alleviate the effects even of hereditary diseases, because of our better understanding of the total picture of the human genome.
Ms Hewitt: On that second point, I entirely agree about the need to present a balanced picture and to understand the implications both for good and for potential harm.
The hon. Gentleman raised the vital issue of patenting. Under current UK law, human genes in the cells in our bodies cannot be patented. That is clearly right. As I said earlier, a European Communities directive will come into force later this year, establishing the same basic principle right across Europe. It will rightly make it clear that, as is already the case in the United Kingdom, patents will be available only for the invention of new technical solutions. That is also necessary to give companies the incentive that they need to make what may well be very substantial investments in creating new intellectual capital, and of course they will seek to protect those intellectual property rights.
Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): My hon. Friend rightly said that insurance companies cannot require individuals to disclose genetic information, but does she not recognise that as genetic testing develops, there is nothing to stop them inviting people to do so in return for a lower premium? Is it not likely that we will have to find a new way of pooling risk in insurance, if we are to avoid the sort of genetic exclusion that many hon. Members are worried about?
Ms Hewitt: I think that I said earlier that the Association of British Insurers already has in place a voluntary code of practice on genetic testing. It is as concerned as we are to get this right, in order to ensure that people are not discriminated against and unfairly prevented from getting insurance, but that insurance companies can continue to do their job properly. That is one of the major issues that we will ask the Human
Genetics Commission to consider and advise us on, as they examine in greater detail the implications of the greater availability and accuracy of genetic testing.
Mr. Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I join the Minister in welcoming the announcement of joint publication by the American and British researchers, and I agree with her declaration that the work is about six sevenths of the way through. Clearly, there is much more work to come.
Applications for patents have been submitted in the United States. The Minister said that no such applications would be granted in this country, but will she say whether any have been made? Will Government funds be needed to oppose patent applications, given the implications that will arise if a patent is granted in the United States? Will she join me in saying that there would be no objection to a patent on a diagnostic test or a treatment, but that we would object if such a patent blocked the introduction of better and cheaper tests and treatments? Is not the point of patent protection that it allows advance and progress, as opposed to freezing research and allowing no further change?
Ms Hewitt: I have already set out the legal position in this country. I am not sure whether applications for patents in respect of the raw data have been made here, but no such patent would succeed. Applications for patents on the raw data have been made and are pending in the USA, but the US Patent and Trade Mark Office is reviewing its policy in this area.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the joint statement made in March by President Clinton and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister:
- To realise the full promise of this research, raw fundamental data on the human genome, including the human DNA sequence and its variations, should be made freely available to scientists everywhere. Unencumbered access to this information will promote discoveries that will reduce the burden of disease, improve health around the world, and enhance the quality of life for all humankind.
Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East): I add my congratulations to all those involved in this great discovery, not just in Cambridge and in America, but all over the world. I liken the research to a marathon: the starting gun was fired in 1953 with the discovery of the double helix, and today we are just passing the first mile-post.
I believe that future research will depend on three things. First, finance will be needed, as the pace of research will increase from now on. Secondly, the crowd must be kept cheering, so it is vital that the general public are kept informed and on the side of the scientists. Thirdly, legislators must keep a close eye on the race, in case the rules have to be changed from time to time. Does my hon. Friend agree that those three elements are essential if the research is to be kept going?
Ms Hewitt: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I stress that the most recent comprehensive spending review increased the budgets of the relevant research councils to ensure that research into human genetics could proceed. Further announcements will be made when the current
spending review is complete. However, much of the next wave of research into how the information can be exploited for diagnostic testing and treatment will come from the private sector.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): The Minister rightly paid tribute to the work of the Wellcome Foundation in making possible the British effort towards mapping the human genome. In the United States, commercial investment in the Celera company has pushed the project forward. That company appears to take an aggressive stance, and it is clear that it wants to hang on to certain parts of the intellectual property in this matter. What discussions has the Minister's Department had with that company to establish whether its approach is compatible with the United Kingdom approach that she outlined? Here, the approach is to make the information open and available to all scientists, but that does not match the impression that I get of Celera's attitude.
Ms Hewitt: It is fair to say that the competition from Celera has helped to speed up the work of the human genome project. In this field, as in many others, competition has produced real benefits. We will be watching with great interest to see, for instance, what statements have been made today by the director of Celera about the terms on which medical and scientific researchers will have access to the human genome data that they have decoded.
It is also worth saying that because Celera took a different approach to the decoding of the human genome alphabet, there may well be real advantages to come as scientists compare the different alphabets arrived at through the different scientific methods.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): I welcome my hon. Friend's statement on a major event in the progress of scientific understanding. What plans are there to publish the benefits of this breakthrough for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, and to indicate the regulatory process? In that way, public fears may be answered and reduced, and will not impede the application of this new science, in which Britain excels.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth stressing that we should not expect immediate changes in the treatment or diagnosis of disease as a result of the work that has so far been done by the human genome project. The project has created the genetic map that will provide the foundation for a revolution in medical diagnosis and treatment that is yet to come. We can see, even from the publicity that there has already been about today's announcement, that the public will
soon come to appreciate the extraordinary implications and the scale of importance of the milestone that has been passed today.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |