Recently, 23andMe, the direct-to-consumer genetic diagnostic company, announced it had been issued a patent for a system of applying genetic testing – and, consequently, genetic screening – to egg and sperm banks. (Full disclosure: I am a 23andMe consumer.) In brief, 23andMe’s system involves receiving information from would-be parents about which traits they’d like their children to possess, and then determining which egg or sperm donations would be the best genetic fit to create those children. While egg and sperm banks currently allow would-be parents to sort through the traits of egg and sperm donors – such as race, height, athleticism, and even SAT scores – 23andMe’s patent envisions applying statistics to the genetic profiles of both donors and recipients to create something of a “custom child.”
To be clear, 23andMe’s patent is just that: a patent. There’s no indication that 23andMe has put its system into implementation or even made a serious business attempt to do so. Nonetheless, others have discussed the ethics behind 23andMe’s system, the propriety of the patent, and 23andMe’s ultimate plans with its intellectual property. But one question I’m particularly intrigued by is: Assuming 23andMe’s vision comes to pass – one easily within our technological if not cultural grasp – what will the future of reproductive medicine look like?
First, it would be a tremendous boon to the medical care of those “custom children,” as it would likely eliminate many common gene variants responsible for disease. These range from simple, single-gene diseases, such as Marfan syndrome, spinal muscular atrophy, and Huntington’s disease, to complex multi-gene diseases, such as breast and ovarian cancer, for which certain gene variants play a significantly large etiological role. And, as is demonstrated by the list above, these diseases need not be limited to the traditional fatal-in-childhood diseases, such as Tay-Sachs or Niemann-Pick syndrome, that are currently screened for. Rather, as is the case with Huntington’s disease, which only afflicts its sufferers in mid-life, the method could quash those genetic variants that cause disease through all stages of life.
Second, the robustness of the technology behind the 23andMe patent may spur demand for in vitro fertilization. Few couples capable of conceiving without technological intervention undergo IVF today. But some of that is ultimately a matter of choice: that there are few benefits to be had through IVF relative to natural conception. The possibilities for customization described in the 23andMe patent – choosing a child possessing hundreds of hand-picked traits, from curly hair down to caffeine metabolism – may, at least for some, change that calculus. The potential for customization drives demand in other enterprises – smartphones, cheeseburgers, insurance policies, even house paint. It’s culturally naïve to think it will have no effect on reproductive technology.
And lastly, I suppose it also means that reproductive medicine will increasingly come within the ambit of patent law. Since its inception in the 1970s, IVF has largely been free of the destructive and costly patent litigation seen in other industries, such as smartphones. If 23andMe’s patent is indicative of a future norm, reproductive medicine may very well operate in a world controlled by licensing agreements and cowered by threats of litigation. Whether one is entitled to a particular genetic screening method may have little to do with the quality of the institution – as it generally does now – but more with whether an institution has agreed to pay the appropriate royalties. At least this aspect of reproductive medicine is not so futuristic: The current set of patent infringement lawsuits among Verinata, Sequenom, Natera, and Ariosa has held up much non-invasive, prenatal screening for Down’s syndrome.
These issues are both fascinating and complex, and the larger concerns raised by the system described in the 23andMe patent only touch a small fraction of the ethical and practical quandaries involved. For a discussion of the remainder, Stanford’s own Hank Greely, JD, will attempt to address them in his upcoming book, “The End of Sex“. Let us at least hope that that institution’s end is not because of patents.
Jake Sherkow, JD, is a fellow at Stanford Law School’s Center for Law and the Biosciences. His current research focuses on the intersection of patent law, biotechnology, and agency regulation.
Previously: Whole-genome fetal sequencing recognized as one of the year’s “10 Breakthrough Technologies”, Stanford bioethicists discuss pros, cons of biotech patents, The end of sex? Maybe not just yet, New techniques to diagnose disease in a fetus, and Sex without babies, and vice versa: Stanford panel explores issues surrounding reproductive technologies
Photo by Lisa Williams