Sir John Sulston slams Craig Venter’s ‘excessively broad’ patent applications at Royal Society event

Published: 25 May 2010
By: Peter Prowse

Sir John Sulston, who won a Nobel Prize for his research into genetics, slammed Dr Craig Venter’s application to patent the ‘first synthetic life form’ as part of his wide-ranging critique of the patent system in a discussion at the Royal Society on 24 May.

The event, which was a joint initiative by the Royal Society, The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys and the Intellectual Property Office, brought together four authoritative figures from the worlds of science and intellectual property to discuss the question ‘Who owns science?’ Alongside Sir John Sulston, who chairs the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation at the University of Manchester, on the platform were John Alty, Chief Executive, Intellectual Property Office, Charles Leadbeater, author of We-think: the power of mass creativity and Dr Adam Heathfield, Director of Science Policy Europe, Pfizer.

Professor Sulston drew on material used in the Manchester Manifesto, published in 2009, to call for the patent system to be reformed and for governments and society to find alternative models for rewarding scientific research. He also specifically criticised Dr Craig Venter for applying for patents on the artificially created organism, nicknamed Synthia. "I hope very much these patents won't be accepted because they would bring genetic engineering under the control of the J Craig Venter Institute (JCVI),” he said. “They would have a monopoly on a whole range of techniques."

Patent attorney Dr Gordon Wright, who was at the Royal Society event and who is a member of CIPA’s Biotech Committee, defended the patent system, arguing that without it, pharmaceutical companies would have had little incentive to make the massive investment in R&D that has resulted in hundreds of effective, widely available drugs since 1945. “Without patents, we wouldn’t have a pharmaceutical industry”, he said.

Dr Wright has also commented on Dr Venter’s application to patent ‘synthetic life’. “Craig Venter’s patent applications are at an early stage of examination,” Gordon Wright said. “They have a long way to go before any patents will be granted. Examination by US examiners has already indicated that the claimed inventions are too broadly defined. In Europe, the breadth of both applications has already been limited by the European Patent Office. Both the US and the EPO examination processes can be easily monitored by the public. Anyone can make comments to the EPO on the patentability of the applications, which have to be passed on to the applicant. There is every likelihood that the applications will be significantly restricted in scope before grant.”