Here’s an extract of what they say
Critics argue that the current legal framework leaves room for the granting of low-quality patents that serve only to monopolise the market. Psychedelic patents are contentious because they protect ‘inventions’ which are not actually new but have been appropriated from indigenous communities who have practised psychedelic medicine for as long as we have been human. Further, experts warn that a small number of companies obtaining large swathes of intellectual property in the industry’s nascence could suppress innovation and reduce access to these therapies, thus limiting the great impact that psychedelics have the potential to engender.
Problematic patents?
A patent is an intellectual property right. Obtaining a patent provides an inventor with exclusive rights to the patented process, invention or design for a limited period of time (20 years in the UK). Consequently, patent holders can exclude others from making, using or selling the subject of the patent without their permission. In the pharmaceutical context, patents protect the owner’s investment and the expensive process of drug development and approval. A product must be both novel and useful to satisfy patenting requirements. However, patent applications can be made in bad faith to dominate the market and block competition.
On the face of it, one might think that psychedelic compounds don’t qualify for patent protection because they have been in use for centuries and are therefore not new. Regardless, a number of companies currently hold dozens of patents for psychedelic compounds and methods of producing and administering them. In fact, most jurisdictions would exclude psychedelic plants from patent eligibility because they are products of nature and therefore free for all to use. However, companies can get around this by making subtle variations to their naturally-occurring chemical structure.
Read full article at. https://volteface.me/psychedelic-patents-ethical/
