Australian federal court rules isolated genetic material can be patented

The federal court has ruled that a company may patent genetic material that has been extracted from the human body, in a move that may have serious repercussions for the future of medical research in Australia.

Cancer Voices Australia began legal action over patents associated with a gene known as BRCA1 in 2010. Mutated versions of this gene, which women can be born with, have been associated with an increased risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

“[The patenting of this material] places limits on genetic testing, genetic research and the development of treatments and cures for genetically associated disease,” the Maurice Blackburn lawyer Rebecca Gilsenan said.

Australian federal court rules isolated genetic material can be patented

This is not really a patent but a patented resource essentially. It's saying that no body else is allowed to use a naturally occurring cell cluster for medical research. Patenting cancer for medical treatment research just because you discovered the genetic code is like patenting gold for jewelery, because hey since you FOUND it first, not CREATED/INVENTED/TRANSMUTED it, and anyone who wants to make a ring has to apply for patent use since it infringes on the use of the patented resource.
Gold isn't created/transmuted from lead through alchemy and a philosopher stone, and neither is cancer created from cells magically. If the company were to create a method of recreating this type of cancer in a lab environment for medical experimentation then they COULD patent that and all cells created through their process, but as it stands, if you had this cancer and god forbid cut a piece of flesh from yourself and "ran a test" of how the cancer would react to water being poured over the cell, you will have committed the crime of experimenting on this form of cancer.

No surprise here that this is being done by a U.S company. The number one corporate goal is to make money, no matter the cost/lives lost/damage to nature, etc.

I am completely sickened by this and can't believe a court ruled in favor of this. I know 0 people who have survived cancer & 7 people who have died from cancer.

There is a petition you can sign that tells Myriad Genetics to stop trying to profit off breast cancer victims. I don't think I can include it in this article because it would violate a T&C but you can google it. (The petition is done by SumOfUs.)

If I were in the medical industry here in Oz I would most certainly completely ignore that ridiculous law and tell any subsequent Judge to stick his law up his rectum.

I hate to go here but I do have to wonder whether Fat Abbott had anything to do with influencing this decision - he certainly seems to be hell-bent on being a Mini-Bush.

Looks like we have found where the court members get their money.

Truly sad decision.

a reply to: roadgravel

Sadly no country is exempted from the influences of private interest, very soon if no already all nations will be run by the corporate power.

It is ridiculous to patent anything DNA or otherwise that is extracted from the human bodies, we humans are the owners by design and birth of our individual DNS, with sickness or not sickness.

a reply to: Kryties

Is Fat Abbot the Prime Minister of Australia?

a reply to: Sabiduria

Tony Abbott, yeah he's our PM. Sorry, didn't realise you were from Canada until just then

Anything is possible, I found this one yesterday and because I live in WA it astounded me.

www.youtube.com...


Don't know what to make of it, the guy appears to be highly intelligent and switched on.

As it harms people and violates basic human rights, common law, (ie the litany of thou shalt not harm) the judge is rogue and his judgement is null and void.

ONLY human rights, common law and constitution and things that benefit and free people ARE EVEN LEGAL.

Tell that to the private interest groups that have just bought Australia.

a reply to: Unity_99

That may be the case but it still got approval anyway. Myriad Genetics wants to make big money and this is one of their many plans on the go.

There is a petition you can sign that tells Myriad Genetics to stop trying to profit off breast cancer victims.

The thing is, the judge agreed that Australian law allows the patent. Australian law differs from US law. That's why the decision is contrary to what the US supreme court has ruled. In Australia an invention must be the result of "an artificial state of affairs". The process of isolating the gene, , the "method of manufacture" is integral to the patent. In the US the invention cannot be a "product of nature, it doesn't matter how it is isolated.

Nice. A petition to stifle independent research. Do you think research is free? Do you think that a loss of private investment opportunities would be a good thing for medical research? I grant you it is an uncomfortable situation. However advanced research requires money.

a reply to: Sabiduria

Myriad Genetics wants to make big money and this is one of their many plans on the go.

They spent a lot of money, too.

originally posted by: Sabiduria
a reply to: Unity_99

That may be the case but it still got approval anyway. Myriad Genetics wants to make big money and this is one of their many plans on the go.

Its up to people to ingore all things null and void and to take the next step, and form citizens groups in every town and region and interconnect them, and educate them, real problem solvers who replace city counsel that stands in the way of donating land and forming eco farms for the homeless say, or solving all sorts of problems and who let them all know, not following you're crapola any longer. And making sure these decisions get stricken from the books.

Also, get PI's on to the judges to dig up their dirty laundry.

a reply to: Phage

Let me restate:
"This is not really a patent but a patented resource essentially. It's saying that no body else is allowed to use a naturally occurring cell cluster for medical research. Patenting cancer for medical treatment research just because you discovered the genetic code is like patenting gold for jewelery, because hey since you FOUND it first, not CREATED/INVENTED/TRANSMUTED it, and anyone who wants to make a ring has to apply for patent use since it infringes on the use of the patented resource.
Gold isn't created/transmuted from lead through alchemy and a philosopher stone, and neither is cancer created from cells magically. If the company were to create a method of recreating this type of cancer in a lab environment for medical experimentation then they COULD patent that and all cells created through their process, but as it stands, if you had this cancer and god forbid cut a piece of flesh from yourself and "ran a test" of how the cancer would react to water being poured over the cell, you will have committed the crime of experimenting on this form of cancer."


This isn't a matter of independent research, this is is a matter about patenting a cancer gene in the human body & it's 100% b.s to put a patent on a cancer gene.

I'm all for research but this is insane. I would rather this cancer gene be available for any person in Australia to use in a study for a cure/treatment. I don't want it to be limited to one company. Yes advanced research requires money but that doesn't mean that a company should hold a monopoly on a cancer gene.

The thing is, the judge agreed that Australian law allows the patent. Australian law differs from US law. That's why the decision is contrary to what the US supreme court has ruled.

Yes I know that, I read the full article, it still doesn't make it acceptable.

This thread was featured on the newest OOTB show.
OOTB:8

a reply to: Sabiduria

Yes advanced research requires money but that doesn't mean that a company should hold a monopoly on a cancer gene.

You mean they should not be able to recoup their research costs through licensing the gene and the method used to isolate it? That doesn't leave a lot of incentive for private research, does it?

a reply to: Phage
Jeez at this point if you can't understand that I am against privatized research & think that everything should be available to anyone, than you clearly don't read every single word someone has typed or you see words that aren't there.

I don't know how else to phrase it for you, me no likey privatized cancer research. Should be available for all.

a reply to: Sabiduria

I don't know how else to phrase it for you, me no likey privatized cancer research. Should be available for all.

So, if not private research, then who?
Strictly government? Should there be a law against private research? I'm not sure that's a good idea.

a reply to: Phage

*Sigh* let's try this again.

No single interest should have soul control of the genetics of any one disease/illness/etc. They're patenting the cancers genetics from the top down, this isn't just a cure for a particular cancer that they have found, this is like patenting polio before any vaccine had come out for it. The study of disease that will benefit all off mankind needs to remain open and available to any lab around the world.

a reply to: Sabiduria

In this world, there must be incentives for companies to devote millions of dollars to research. That incentive is a return on that investment.

A patent does not prevent anyone from doing research any more than a patent prevents you from using Windows 7. It's called licensing, it's what patents are used for.