Supreme Court says natural human genes can't be patented

Supreme Court says natural human genes can't be patented

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that natural human genes cannot be patented by companies, but it said that synthetically produced genetic material can — a mixed ruling for the biotechnology industry. A naturally occurring piece of DNA is “a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated,” the court said. The case centered on a Salt Lake City company called Myriad Genetics that was granted patents for isolating two human genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, that indicate a higher risk of breast and ovarian cancer. The company now markets tests for those genes. BRCA1 is the gene carried by actress Angelina Jolie, who determined after a test that she was at higher risk of developing breast cancer and chose to have a double mastectomy. The court said that Myriad had found something important and useful, but it ruled that “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery” does not by itself guarantee a patent.

Score one for the people. Now big phrama can't take our DNA and claim it as theirs. I wonder if some of these companies that have been paying Myriad Genetics will be asking for some money back?

I had no doubt that the Supreme Court would rule this way. There is nothing proprietary about the human genome; it belongs to us all. Although, I am a bit surprised that all 9 SC Justices got this one correct.



S&F

reply to post by buster2010


This is very, very good news!

I remember hearing of a case where an certain individual generated a rare set of genes that were able to be recreated and were able to be used to help defeat a debilitating disease in a multitude of sufferers. The company that isolated that individual's unique gene were claiming ownership of this individual's genes, and therefore, ownership of the "cure". The implications that one company, and one company only could withhold or sell a remedy to whomever they pleased, for whatever price they pleased, is just down right evil!

In a world where corporations play god, this is very, very good news for the medical and agricultural community!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by buster2010

 

This is very, very good news!

I remember hearing of a case where an certain individual generated a rare set of genes that were able to be recreated and were able to be used to help defeat a debilitating disease in a multitude of sufferers. The company that isolated that individual's unique gene were claiming ownership of this individual's genes, and therefore, ownership of the "cure". The implications that one company, and one company only could withhold or sell a remedy to whomever they pleased, for whatever price they pleased, is just down right evil!

In a world where corporations play god, this is very, very good news for the medical and agricultural community!

Hopefully that person can now file a lawsuit against them.

The companies trying to patent DNA should be restricted from doing business in the USA. That is pure greed, everyone working with the genes they discovered would owe them money. I hate patents on some things, it is the worst thing every created in this world.

reply to post by buster2010

Hopefully that person can now file a lawsuit against them.

Yeah. For royalties!

Hallelujah this is great news and a victory for humanity, now we can tell the police that my DNA is private and only under warrant they can take it

Is interesting because ruling will is an opposition of the one passed that Police could gather DNA from people under suspicion, usually the DNA is send to a data base .

I wonder how this will work.

reply to post by marg6043


Patenting a gene and gathering DNA are two different issues, unfortunately. One concerns privacy the other ownership of discoveries.

Wonderful news! DNA is computer code that is open source, and belongs to ALL. This should end some of the corruption outright!

Outstanding story! The courts do get it right occasionally....even if they blow it huge on other things.

I was worried this may go the other way. Who the heck knows with the 'Robed Ones'...but this time, we scored a jackpot for a win!

WTG SCOTUS!

Excellent News!


It's a funny coincidence-- I was just reading about this controversy, and even this company, specifically (in an article unrelated to the debate / ruling here) just yesterday or the day before.



Good to know they can't get away with this-- as they shouldn't be able to. Very dangerous precedent to set. We do not need to give the medical and pharma industries any more of a license to print money and control society (than we've already given them.)


And just as importantly, perhaps more, we can't allow human genetics to fall under the control of the corporatocracy.

reply to post by buster2010



The fact that this was even brought up in court shows that people don't have a clue about science. Obviously you can't patent something that everyone produces in their own body as it would make every human the intellectual property of a company.

The fact this was even allowed in court shows this society is screwed.


Yes I'm fully aware you can patent human mutated genes.

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by buster2010

 

Obviously you can't patent something that everyone produces in their own body as it would make every human the intellectual property of a company.

exactly...

That is what makes this so scary...the fact that any corporation is attempting progress in this direction at all. It reminds me of Monsanto, but on a human genetics level.

Originally posted by idunno12

Originally posted by LastStarfighter
reply to post by buster2010

 

Obviously you can't patent something that everyone produces in their own body as it would make every human the intellectual property of a company.

exactly...

That is what makes this so scary...the fact that any corporation is attempting progress in this direction at all. It reminds me of Monsanto, but on a human genetics level.

That's exactly what it is. They get scientists who accomplish some "thing", then they bring in salesman type moneymaker lawyer scumbag to sell the idea to stupid lay people who don't understand science yet have the ability to allow or disallow this crap on the American public.

I see some people think this is 'good news' but it isn't.

As any product made be it from something sitting on your desk or some new miracle treatment costs billions in R & D.

All the hope of stem cell research that could save millions say goodbye as they are natural human genes.

Aren't patents usually applied to prevent the patented object from being touched by anyone ever?
'Something amazingly beneficial for mankind that would make a hugely profitable business obsolete? Quick, slap a copyright on it and shelve it!'

Originally posted by neo96
I see some people think this is 'good news' but it isn't.

As any product made be it from something sitting on your desk or some new miracle treatment costs billions in R & D.

All the hope of stem cell research that could save millions say goodbye as they are natural human genes.

Nobody is trying to patent the stem cells. They patent the work that is done with them.

Stem cell

The patents covering a lot of work on human embryonic stem cells are owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF). WARF does not charge academics to study human stem cells but does charge commercial users. WARF sold Geron Corp. exclusive rights to work on human stem cells but later sued Geron Corp. to recover some of the previously sold rights

reply to post by buster2010


Oh really?

Funny how that 'excuse' doesn't work for human genes.

Suddenly it's about them trying to own them not the work done.

Originally posted by marg6043
Hallelujah this is great news and a victory for humanity, now we can tell the police that my DNA is private and only under warrant they can take it

Is interesting because ruling will is an opposition of the one passed that Police could gather DNA from people under suspicion, usually the DNA is send to a data base .

I wonder how this will work.

To answer your question, it won't work. The SC ruling has nothing to do with ownership of DNA or genetic material. It was based upon the narrow priciple that you can't patent a naturally occurring substance. You can patent a synthesized genetic sequence. The ruling is based on patent law and not property law. So no one can patent the DNA in the gene containing your allele for blonde hair, but the police can still take a buccal swab for it if you're arrested for a felony.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by buster2010

 

Oh really?

Funny how that 'excuse' doesn't work for human genes.

Suddenly it's about them trying to own them not the work done.

Because there is a difference between work that is done using a cell and patenting DNA itself.