It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breast cancer gene patent reinstated

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Breast cancer gene patent reinstated


www.newscientist.com

How's this for a brain teaser: gene patents scrapped last year on the grounds that they were based on natural molecules were last week reinstated on the grounds that the molecules are, after all, unnatural. The development is the latest twist in a dispute over patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene variants that raise the risk of breast cancer.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.newscientist.com
www.aclu.org
www.aclu.org




posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Get ready to watch an already overblown pricing racket skyrocket!


In a ruling last March, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York declared the patents invalid because they describe genes found in nature, which cannot be patented as they are not inventions.

Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reached the opposite conclusion.


Apparently, the "wisdom" brought into play here was that since the description of the gene submitted by "Myriad Genetics" did not include the spurious genetic content they deem "junk DNA" it was not actual a "natural gene" and therefore can be patented after all......

This is the same logic that could be applied to say that if you lose your appendix you are no longer human.... (OK, that was hyperbole - sorry).

What this does for the whole industry is make it possible to patent even more human genes.... how long before they own you?

www.newscientist.com (visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Isn't over 90% of our DNA classified under the term 'junk DNA'. Therefore like you say doesn't this ruling open the floodgates for them to potentially own us by legal patent. Is that worse than slavery???
edit on 2/8/11 by goldentorch because: clarification



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by goldentorch
 


No one can "own" you without your consent, regardless of semantical legal/patent mumbo jumbo.

You could show me all the "proof" in the world that some nefarious corporations "owns" my body, complete with patents, court rulings, lawyers, etc, and Ill still reject your "authority" and tell you to go stick your head into the oven


Rulers rule through the acquiescence of the people. Just say "no", and really they have no power.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
My understanding of this is that the issue of wether or not these things SHOULD be patented is not nearly as important as making sure that any moraly retarded , ethicaly devoid , soul less scum who think its a good idea to do so, get shot , right in the face, as soon as they raise the issue with the patent office.

Anyone who would want to stand in the way of affordable gene therapy for those with serious health complaints, by trying to purchase part of the blue print of humanity , are not worth the air they breathe or the crap they leave in the toilet.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


Yes of course you have a point, and if government and society worked in any equitable way your stance would be defended by that very society. You cannot be on this site and pretend that the system is working hunkey dorey and looking after you and yours.
I'll write you a nightmare scenario now. What if in the future when your body's genes are patented and you get ill but luckily enough last week some intrepid explorer found a plant that cures it. What if you're not allowed to use it because it inteferes with the operation of their patent, you would be altering one of their patents with the effect of the medicine. This of course they would find when you went for your usual biometrich test and you open yourself to criminal or civil action. Both of which are possible under present criminal and civil statutes regarding patents.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 





any moraly retarded , ethicaly devoid , soul less scum who think its a good idea to do so, get shot , right in the face, as soon as they raise the issue with the patent office.


Bravo!
Until the day that these thieves and criminals (all of them, bankers and politicians included) are made to realize real repercussions for their actions, nothing will change.
Brother!



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 





My understanding of this is that the issue of wether or not these things SHOULD be patented is not nearly as important as making sure that any moraly retarded , ethicaly devoid , soul less scum who think its a good idea to do so, get shot , right in the face, as soon as they raise the issue with the patent office.


Now now....don't go getting hasty. I'd like to hear from these moraly retarded , ethicaly devoid , soul less scum just in case there's a legit reason for this or there's something we're over looking. I'm sure there's some good people working in the world of genetics. They can't all be Dr. Frankensteins. I just want to make sure I have all my bases covered before I start pulling triggers.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by goldentorch
Isn't over 90% of our DNA classified under the term 'junk DNA'. Therefore like you say doesn't this ruling open the floodgates for them to potentially own us by legal patent. Is that worse than slavery???
edit on 2/8/11 by goldentorch because: clarification


Actually they are setting themselves up for a big fall. If this gene is "unnatural" then it should appear in the natural human body. Thus this company is liable for it being in peoples bodies because they patented it.



posted on Aug, 4 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 


Theres no need for patents on these things. Patenting a gene will only serve one purpose. Say someone wants to cure cancer? They want to do so by checking out its gene structure, and messing with it with chemicals, electrical stimulus, whatever. In order to study it, they would have to PAY the patent owner for the right to do so, making any treatment resulting from that research, much more expensive, and pricing honest hard working (read poor) folks out completely, like already happens with the more effective anti cancer pills.

You see why this is wrong? These things should be kept as common property , and there should be no charge by any individual or company for the right to study and use that genetic information in research, or in other scientific activity designed to improve humanities survival rates in terms of the diseases that can be studied.

Dont forget, that in terms of law, this sets a precedent, and the last thing we need is all the potential information and learning that COULD come from gene study , costing six , seven, ten times what it already costs, just because some god awful, greedy suit wanted an extra few zeros on his portfolio.

These S.O.B's think that the human blueprint is something they have a right to make money on. They must be re educated... preferably ballistically.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join