Human gene ownership
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Danifo

Thread: Human gene ownership

  1. #1
    Posting Addict ClairesMommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    12,517

    Default Human gene ownership

    The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments today about whether it's really legal to patent human genes and whether a company with a patent can restrict testing and treatment. The court's decision involves an American case but it could have major implications throughout the world for the future of medicine and medical research. The nine justices will grapple with the question: can something taken from DNA, the building block of life, also be the building block of a multimillion-dollar medical monopoly? The answer could reshape U.S. medical research, the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer and the multi-billion dollar medical and biotechnology business.

    Researcher Chris Mason with the New York Genome Center told CBC the patents already given for thousands of genes means you don't own your own genetic material.

    "It means as soon as you extract DNA from your body or your doctor does, it's no longer your property, nor your doctor's. It's the property of a company," he said."The intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have a significant impact on other patents ? for antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, stem cells and diagnostics on infectious microbes that are found in nature," Robert Cook-Deegan, director for genome ethics, law & policy at Duke University, said in a statement.

    "This could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels and other applications," he said.

    The decision will also have a profound effect on American business, with billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years. And Myriad Genetics alone has $500 million invested in the patents being argued over in this case. Without the ability to recoup that investment, breakthrough scientific discoveries needed to combat all kinds of medical maladies wouldn't happen, the company says.

    "Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop scientific advances under the promise of strong patent protection," said Peter D. Meldrum, the president and CEO of Myriad Genetics, in a statement.But their opponents argue that allowing companies like Myriad to patent human genes or parts of human genes will slow down or cripple lifesaving medical research like in the battle against breast cancer."

    What that means is that no other researcher or doctor can develop an additional test, therapy or conduct research on these genes," said Karuna Jagger, executive director of Breast Cancer Action.
    The Supreme Court has already said that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be given a patent, which gives an inventor the right to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application.

    Myriad's case involves patents on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad's BRACAnalysis test looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer. Women with a faulty gene have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer and a higher risk of ovarian cancer. Men can also carry a BRCA mutation, raising their risk of prostate, pancreatic and other types of cancer. The mutations are most common in people of eastern European Jewish descent. Myriad sells the only BRCA gene test.

    The American Civil Liberties Union challenged Myriad's patents, arguing that genes couldn't be patented, and in March 2010 a New York district court agreed. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now twice ruled that genes can be patented. In Myriad's case, it's because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body. Mark C. Capone, president of Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of Myriad, said some of the concerns over what they have patented are overblown and some simply incorrect.

    "Myriad cannot, should not and has not patented genes as they exist in the human body on DNA," Capone said in an interview. "This case is truly about isolated DNA molecules which are synthetic chemicals created by the human ingenuity of man that have very important clinical utilities, which is why this was eligible for a patent."But the ACLU is arguing that isolating the DNA molecules doesn't stop them from being DNA molecules, which they say aren't patentable.

    Under this theory, Hans Dehmelt, who won the Nobel Prize for being the first to isolate a single electron from an atom, could have patented the electron itself," said Christopher A. Hansen, the ACLU's lawyer in court papers. "A kidney removed from the body (or gold extracted from a stream) would be patentable subject matter."

    The Obama administration seems to agree. Artificially created DNA can be patented, but "isolated but otherwise unmodified genomic DNA is not patent-eligible," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in court papers. That was the ruling of the original judge who looked at Myriad's patents after they were challenged by the ACLU in 2009. U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet said he invalidated the patents because DNA's existence in an isolated form does not alter the fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body or the information it encodes. But the federal appeals court reversed him in 2011, saying Myriad's genes can be patented because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body. The Supreme Court threw out that decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for rehearing. This came after the high court unanimously threw out patents on a Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., test that could help doctors set drug doses for autoimmune diseases like Crohn's disease, saying the laws of nature are unpatentable. But the federal circuit upheld Myriad's patents again in August, leading to the current review. The court will rule before the end of the summer.

    "The key issue now for the court will therefore be whether the scientist working in the lab to isolate a particular gene innovated in a way that allows for that isolated gene to be patented," said Bruce Wexler, a lawyer with the law firm Paul Hastings, who advises pharmaceutical and biotech companies on patent issues.

    The case is 12-398, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
    Question over human gene ownership before U.S. Supreme Court - Health - CBC News

    Opinions? What do you think about owning a patent for something naturally occuring? Do you think a ruling against the holding of gene patents will be detrimental to disease research/clinical drug trials/potential cures? This goes pretty deep. And, since this is a US ruling how do you think other countries will be affected in terms of there own medical research and drug testing?
    Last edited by ClairesMommy; 04-15-2013 at 03:07 PM. Reason: took out redundancy and fixed spacing

  2. #2
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,781

    Default

    I really have no background in this area, but I am interested to see what others say.

    ~Bonita~

  3. #3
    Mega Poster mom3girls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    3,516

    Default

    I was reading about this yesterday, still not 100% sure I understand it. My initial thought process is that while I understand wanting to patent the process used to extract that indiviual gene, I am not sure how they can own something that everyone has naturally occurring in the body. If I wanted company "b" to work on a treatment dealing with that specific gene, but company "a" had the patent it could very much slow down the rate of medical advances
    Lisa
    Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson

  4. #4
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Has anyone read "the immortal life of Henrietta lacks"? Fascinating look at the reality of this stuff. I believe that other people should not be able to profit off of my genetic material. I should receive compensation should my genetic material be used to their benefit- but only a percentage as obviously they are the ones doing the research.

  5. #5
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    23,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Potter75 View Post
    Has anyone read "the immortal life of Henrietta lacks"? Fascinating look at the reality of this stuff. I believe that other people should not be able to profit off of my genetic material. I should receive compensation should my genetic material be used to their benefit- but only a percentage as obviously they are the ones doing the research.
    I read it. And I agree with you.
    Laurie, mom to:
    Nathaniel ( 11 ) and Juliet ( 7 )




    Baking Adventures In A Messy Kitchen (blog)

  6. #6
    Prolific Poster Danifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,553

    Default

    I'm in this area. I would like to see the patents not allowed. If we want to test for breast cancer mutations, we can't unless we get permission from the company that holds the patents. I support the companies being able to patent their method or technology they use to test for the mutations in a gene but right now we cannot design and develop our own tests.

    I'd be surprised if they overturn it though.
    SID081108 likes this.
    DD1 July 2008 (41w3d)
    November 2010 (13 weeks)
    DD2 August 2011 (33w5d)

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions