Genes Can Now Be Patented

In a closely watched case, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday that genes can be patented, overturning a lower court decision that had shocked the biotechnology industry.

The court ruled that DNA isolated from the body was eligible for patents because it was “markedly different” in its chemical structure from DNA that exists inside the chromosomes in the body. As a result, the isolated DNA is not simply a product of nature, which would not be eligible for a patent.

www.nytimes.com...

The case involved patents on two human genes that are used to predict breast cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2. To study these genes, patients and scientists will again have to pay a fee — up to $3,000 — to the company that owns the patent, Myriad Genetics.

www.popsci.com...


A patent on Genes?? So does this mean i can be sued for being tall dark and handsome with a well defined jawline?? (i kid, i kid) These guys are charging $3,000 to study "their" breast cancer genes....... How is this even possible? Where will it end? I'm about to patent the big breast gene, i'll make off better than hugh hef!!

I'm going to patent a nice booty, double d's and dimples. Then i'm going to make all the patent infringers work their sentence off in my basement

unbelievable

we truly are slaves if we don't even own are own DNA!

Start The Revolution!

so nature isn't our god now, money is. great job, science.

What happened when Monsanto patented the soy bean?

This is what you can expect.

The 2-to-1 decision on the gene patenting issue was also a rejection of arguments made by the Obama administration, which had filed a friend of the court brief arguing that isolated DNA should not be patented. That brief went against the long-standing policy of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to grant such patents.

www.nytimes.com...

are they going to try to tax my genes or my dna? how can they patent something that you get from evolution and from you parents. now if they are trying to slice and dice dna to make a super human military personnel and want to patent it so other country's cant copy it. i think that would be ok.

the real question is what are there intentions with this?

Originally posted by NISMOALTI
now if they are trying to slice and dice dna to make a super human military personnel and want to patent it so other country's cant copy it. i think that would be ok.

Why exactly would that be ok again

This story is annoying. DNA is who we are. It's what makes us human how can anyone patent that. Give it a couple of years and we will be charged avfixed rate for the air we breath. It's a sad day for science

The article does state that they are patenting genes which are not a product of nature. So all you tall, well-endowed, blue-eyed people don't have to worry about being sued for stealing patented genes.

reply to post by Glass


Yeah. But how can a gene NOT be a product of nature? Did a human invent the "unnatural" gene? NO. It is a slippery slope that leads straight to hell so why play near the edge

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


You people and your slippery slopes. Anybody making a single step in any direction is suddenly on a slippery slope. If I were to buy a hamburger, all of ATS would cry "You're on a slippery slope to OBESITY!!!"

Isn't it obvious? If human scientists mess with a gene such that its chemical structure is "markedly different" from naturally occuring DNA (ie. DNA that is commonly found in humans without prior intervention by aforementioned human scientists) then it is considered a human invention and therefore eligible for patent.

Which to me makes total sense; if you can create something as revolutionary as a new gene, you should be able to patent it just like any other invention.

reply to post by ProphecyPhD


if the us was to engineer a something like a super soldier, would you want another country to be able to copy it and user something like that aginst us.

i guess im kinda 2 sided on this cus it can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what way you look at it

more than likely they would patent genes just so they could tax every one with a gene tax

I can understand patents on machines that can read DNA and processes to find the parts of DNA you are interested in, but these corporations did not make the DNA and have no absolute rights over it. Unfortunately the concept of morality is one the courts are losing, it is all about power and control these days.

myriad is attempting to recoup their costs. molecular genetic studies is very expensive. and, like the music industry, the "one in a million" successes pay the bills.

....or would it have been better for them to not have done the research in the first place?!


sound to me like you think the cure for cancer should be fr3e?

Can someone loan me 50 million dollars so I can patent Natalie Portman's and Mila Kunas's?

Interesting subject. On one side I am all for being able to patent a DNA sequence that I or my team came up with, is unique and above all does not (in the form patented) occur elsewhere in nature.

On the other side, I am strongly opposed to anyone being able to patent a sequence that they've found and is readily observable in nature be it potential cancer patients or elsewhere.

Likewise, any patented sequence would only pretend to the original "parent DNA". Any offspring due to cross-breeding in nature is no longer protected.

reply to post by tgidkp


It is the application of their study where the profits are, this is just setting up a big gravy train for whoever can identify which genes does what first. Once that has been established it is game over and the corporation with the most patents wins as they just sit back and reap in the profits from anyone undertaking work in this field.

This is like giving ownership of all the dirt in the world to the first person who made a shovel.

My argument was wrong. Reading the NYTimes story set me strait.

This means a gene can be patented only in its isolated form. It doesn’t mean that the patent holder owns your DNA, but it does mean he holds the intellectual-property rights to it. That means the right to licence its manufacture (if that’s possible) or use in experiments, medical tests and other applications, stuff like that. Now obviously, those rights belong to the guy who did the work of isolating and analysing the DNA and made all that possible. If that guy isn’t you, you don’t own those rights, even though you contain the DNA. Fair’s fair.

That’s how the case was presented, and that was the verdict. Hard to argue with it.

What will the conseuqences be?

Well, no-one can seriously make a claim to ownership of a human being based on a patent of their DNA; that’s slavery, which is illegal.

As to fears that the patent holder might try to charge you royalties on possession and use of the DNA, I doubt that would be allowed, either. There is a precedent, of a sort: the final verdict in the neem tree patent controversy. But while the fact that the patent was revoked is encouraging, that one was granted in the first place shows that there are people who do seek to make us pay for things we already own, and yes, they are powerful. Expect more legal battles on this topic in the future. If you’re really concerned, well, there are plenty of advocacy groups and activists who are concerned about it too. People, especially in my part of the world, will not give into this without a fight.