5.9 C
New York
Friday, March 29, 2024

Biggest Genetics Case In History Hangs On Whether Genes Are ‘Products Of Nature’

Any patent lawyers here? Seems to me that there should be a distinction between patenting the gene (a product of nature unless you contort the meaning of words) and a diagnostic product or treatment derived from the gene. This article didn't get into that distinction. ~ Ilene 

Biggest Genetics Case In History Hangs On Whether Genes Are 'Products Of Nature'

Via Agence France Presse, published at the Business Insider

baby-attitude-hoody

flickr/eatmo

The US Supreme Court heard the most high-profile genetics case in history on Monday, as justices considered whether private firms should be allowed to patent human genes linked to breast cancer.

The court's decision could have broad implications for research, patient health and the pharmaceutical industry, with nearly 20 percent of the approximately 24,000 human genes currently under patent, some linked to cancer and Alzheimer's disease.

At issue are the actions of Myriad Genetics, a Utah-based company which holds patents on genes known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, both associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer.

The firm says patents for the two genes, awarded in 1998, have helped it raise the money "necessary to decode the genes, design and deliver the tests, interpret the results, and help patients," to the benefit of a million people.

Critics accuse Myriad of barring research by other institutions on the BRCA genes and making the test too expensive for many patients, with a cost of $3,000 to $4,000.

"Competition is what leads to innovation and improvement," said Harry Ostrer, a medical geneticist and a plaintiff in the case.

[…]

Opponents of gene patenting in this case, led by the American Civil Liberties Union, include more than 150,000 geneticists, pathologists and laboratory professionals.

The ACLU argued that patents on human genes "violate the First Amendment and patent law because genes are 'products of nature' and therefore can't be patented."

Countering that point, Myriad attorney Gregory Castanias told the nine justices that "genes are themselves a human construction."

[…]

 

James Watson, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer, with the late Francis Crick, of DNA's double helix structure in 1953, filed an amicus brief that argued human genes are a product of nature and cannot be monopolized by any entity.

 

"Knowledge per se cannot be patented. Myriad should not own breast cancer genes," Watson said outside the Supreme Court…

Full article here >


Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Stay Connected

157,450FansLike
396,312FollowersFollow
2,280SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x