Slashdot Mirror
Breast Cancer Gene Lawsuit Argues Patents Invalid
bkuhn writes "The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation have filed a lawsuit
charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and
ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid. The
lawsuit (PDF) was filed
on behalf of four scientific organizations representing more than
150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, as well
as individual researchers, breast cancer and women's health groups, and
individual women. Individuals with certain mutations along these two
genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, are at a significantly higher risk for
developing hereditary breast and ovarian cancers."
IANAwhatever but I thought what was patented was the way these genes are found/isolated. Any drug/treatment that affects these genes will use that method.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
Michael Crichton's Gene Patenting Rant
I have a sneaking suspicion that you are right - this isn't about the gene itself, but how to isolate/observe, etc. That process could very well be an invention and it certainly cost R&D money to the original developer.
I guess the question comes down to whether patent protection for health related concerns should be exempted as some (not myself) consider health care a right (I consider it a need and responsibility to procure, but not a right that I expect others to provide for me.)
The plaintiffs are clearly attempting to use this case to overturn all health related patents (in the article) and in my opinion pull health related research from the private sector to the public sector. This would bolster the advocates of national health care and create another (unwritten) constitutional right.
Can someone explain to me why it's legal to patent genes in the first place? I thought patents were supposed to be for new and unique inventions.
You don't patent the gene, you patent the process of identifying and using knowledge about the gene.
The reason that it's legal to 'patent genes' is that is very, very, very (did I mention very?) expensive to discover which gene(s) control an aspect of a plant or animal. My girlfriend is a molecular scientist, so I get to hear about her research woes all of the time. Without some protection of a genetic discovery, it makes no financial sense for a company to actually do the research and discover which genes control an aspect of a plant or animal's composition. A discovery takes at least 5-6 years of research from several researchers, associated support staff, and requires some fairly expensive equipment.
There seems to be a lot of people calling Myriad a big, evil, genetic patent holding corporation. All that I can say is, look at their financials. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars per year doing genetic research, and they make very little money in return for their investment. When I last examined their financials (beginning of 2008 I think), they had been operating at a loss since they went public. They are advancing human knowledge quite a bit, and they will probably go out of business for it within a few years. I posted their financials to slashdot some time ago (feel free to look up their tax forms, they're a publicly traded company). In 2007, they reported a huge operating loss and came out and said in their disclosure that they are in business because of continued shareholder investment.
I, for one, see genetic patents as a necessary evil. If someone or some company is going to take the time and money to make a genetic discovery, they ought to be given some time to try and profit from that discovery. Genetic sequencing is not a quick nor an easy task -- there's a lot more to it than just throwing some genes in the PCR machine and pushing the 'sequence' button. For what it's worth, my girlfriend is also a likely candidate of the BRCA1 gene, as every female in her family that has been tested for it, has it. She is still okay with genetic patents. And no, we're not cold, heartless capitalists...we shop at the co-op, have a garden, brew our own beer, make our own biodiesel, and do all the things that good hippies should do...it's just that without Myriad, *no one* would know that having the BRCA1 gene was a precursor to breast cancer.
Reid
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
What can be patented (but not copyrighted) is the process of performing diagnostic tests on a certain gene.
Their particular diagnostic test or any diagnostic test?
The former I can understand. The latter is yet another example of why we need patent reform. There is plenty of prior art in testing genes for the purpose of performing diagnoses. Once a broad claim has been made in another patent, or recognized in current practice, a narrower claim included in that should not qualify for a patent.
Have gnu, will travel.
The DNA in question must be "isolated". The DNA is not "isolated" when it is naturally occurring. Nobody is claiming your DNA that you were born with. Only an isolated DNA product.
As the suit points out, removing a naturally occurring product from its original location does not make it any less a naturally occurring product, which cannot be patented.
It's good that you've understood the nature of the patents (they are on specific sequences, not methods of isolating them or methods of using them.) But it's unclear why you, or anyone else, thinks that changing the location and surroundings of a naturally occurring molecule makes that molecule patentable.
It is also not clear why this insane doctrine would be limited to genes. Suppose I find a new species (this happens many times a year, as most insect species for example have yet to be identified.) According the the USPTO I could patent "an isolated individual of species XYZ", thus preventing anyone from capturing an individual of such a species for any purpose.
One could further argue that even studying that species in situ would violate my patent, as obviously the very act of observation constitutes "isolation" by an act of selective attention.
Returning from that little speculative excursion, it's curious that you use the term "product" in your defence of this ridiculous policy, as that term makes it sound like something is being "produced" by the act of removing a naturally occurring DNA molecule from its natural environment. But of course nothing is being produced. There is no "isolated DNA product", there is only "isolated DNA".
And again, it is not clear why "isolated DNA", which is not a product but a naturally occurring molecule, ought to be patentable when naturally occurring products are specifically excluded from patentability. It is also not clear why, if "isolated DNA" is patentable, why "isolated any-other-naturally-occurring-thing" is NOT patentable, as in my absurd new-species example above.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
But voting for third parties is a waste. The third party candidates will be corrupted by campaign finance the minute they get elected. Unless you're talking about a third party that only runs in-human robots for office. The root problem with US democracy is campaign finance. Until we deal with campaign finance (aka legalized bribery of elected officials), all the rest is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Voting for third parties is NOT a waste. The more parties the better. It means companies will have to corrupt more people. In fact, taken to it's logical conclusion, every person should be their own party (i.e., we should have NO PARTIES at all). Why can't we just elect an individual solely on what position that person has instead of us voting based on what group they are associated with? Must we always have to align ourselves with a group? Worse yet, limit ourselves to two rotten groups: Democrats and Democrat-lites?
Campaign finance reform is EXACTLY LIKE email spam control and is a waste of time. No matter how many campaign finance reforms you put in, large companies will ALWAYS FIND a way around it, and leave the legitimate contributors out in the cold.