Human genome: US Supreme Court hears patents case

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

This shit is scary and icky. This might belong in Science.

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments questioning whether the human genome can be claimed as intellectual property.
The case relates to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2009, and centres on whether companies should be able to patent genes.
US authorities have been awarding patents on genes to universities and medical companies for almost 30 years.
The case may have far-reaching repercussions for future gene research.
Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies.
According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome.
The ACLU lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the Public Patent Foundation, relates to seven patents on two human genes held by US firm Myriad Genetics.
The genes are linked to breast and ovarian cancer, and Myriad has developed a test to look for mutations in these genes that may increase the risk of developing cancer.
The company argues that the genes patented were "isolated" by them, making them products of human ingenuity and therefore patentable.
The ACLU rejects this argument, saying that genes are products of nature, and therefore can't be patented under US laws.
Speaking immediately after the hearing, the ACLU's lawyer, Christopher Hansen, said: "Myriad did not invent the human genes at issue in this case, and they should not be allowed to patent them.
"The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, not stifle scientific research and the free exchange of ideas, which is what these patents do."
His co-counsel on the case, Daniel Ravicher, said granting patents on genes was "morally offensive".
"Genes are the foundation of life, they are created by nature, not by man," he said.
In 2010 a New York federal court ruled in favour of the ACLU, but an appeals court has on two separate occasions sided with Myriad.
The Supreme Court rejected the appeal court's conclusions, and is now reconsidering the case.
A ruling from the court is expected in June.

(Full article - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22157410)

[Vanilla]

When people start patenting genes, what are they going to patent next? :/ These companies are so greedy. They'll do anything crappy just for boatloads of $$$.

[homegrown terror]

if they could, they'd eliminate oxygen from the air and force us to pay to breathe.

[Red Nightmare]

While I don't think that people should be allowed to "patent" anything, trying to claim a product of nature like a gene as intellectual property is downright insanity.

[Klaatu]

This is like claiming that "we've isolated the gene that makes coffee taste like coffee" therefore no one else can grow and drink coffee without our permission.

C'mon here! It was NATURE that invented coffee, not some profit-mongering capitalist fuck that probably got millions of $ in taxpayer subsidy to do his highly-profitable study anyway :rolleyes:

[Aleksandr Karelin]

Didn't a famous fighter go to china and in 2 weeks gain like 35 pounds of muscle while losing body fat through experimental gene manipulation in the 80's?

Did that fighter not then appear in the longest yard?

[Red Commissar]

When people start patenting genes, what are they going to patent next? :/ These companies are so greedy. They'll do anything crappy just for boatloads of $$$.


While I don't think that people should be allowed to "patent" anything, trying to claim a product of nature like a gene as intellectual property is downright insanity.

Gene-based patents already exist from GMOs, especially from Monsanto. Though this case is different in that they aren't using the gene to form medicine or a product of some sort, instead trying to patent the actual stretch of sequence since they feel they have some right to anything made based on it due to their discovery of it.

Thankfully it seems the supreme court isn't warm to their argument, but it is concerning they were even granted this patent in the first place by the lower courts.