Slashdot Mirror
You Don't 'Own' Your Own Genes
olePigeon (Wik) writes "Cornell University's New York based Weill Cornell Medical College issued a press release today regarding an unsettling trend in the U.S. patent system: Humans don't "own" their own genes, the cellular chemicals that define who they are and what diseases for which they might be at risk. Through more than 40,000 patents on DNA molecules, companies have essentially claimed the entire human genome for profit, report Dr. Christopher E. Mason of Weill Cornell Medical College, and the study's co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey and a member of the High Performance and Research Computing Group, who analyzed the patents on human DNA. Their study, published March 25 in the journal Genome Medicine, raises an alarm about the loss of individual 'genomic liberty.'"
Careful, these guys are going to come after you for procreating next!
Think of the children! No, really.
...but fortunately, I have complete legal ownership due to the grandfather clause.
"The U.S. Supreme Court will review genomic patent rights in an upcoming hearing on April 15. At issue is the right of a molecular diagnostic company to claim patents not only on two key breast and ovarian cancer genes — BRCA1 and BRCA2 — but also on any small sequence of code within BRCA1, including a striking patent for only 15 nucleotides. " ...
"This means if the Supreme Court upholds the current scope of the patents, no physician or researcher can study the DNA of these genes from their patients, and no diagnostic test or drug can be developed based on any of these genes without infringing a patent," says Dr. Mason.
* Personally I believe the supreme court will throw out these patents.
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin
Don't each of those genes have prior art? In what way have these companies created a new and innovative device?
If this is the case, Merck can send a cease and desist letter to that woman who copied my genome without permission and is now seeking child support payments.
Have gnu, will travel.
How did all these patents get issued, when legally in the U.S., patents cannot be issued for products of nature?
Somebody is massively and badly f*cking up, somewhere.
I claim prior art! Well, my parents could, at least.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
So if you get sick with cancer, just sue the company that is the owner of the gene. Tell the courts they own the patent and you never asked for there products to be put into you. Make clear you only want those mutated cancer cells removed that they own.. Free cancer treatment.
...only outlaws will synthesize their own proteins.
Find a company which "owns" a gene that controls some specific disease, like a cancer. Now, everyone with that disease files a lawsuit against the patent holder. They own it, they should be liable for the damages it is causing by being released into the general population. By claiming a patent, this implies invention, therefore we can infer liability!
After a few multi-million dollar lawsuit awards, no one would want to "own" a gene. Problem solved.
Basically corporations have yet another carte blanche to sue whoever they want for whatever reason.
Well, "basically" (the superfluous "basically" make the user look like an idiot by the way) anyone can sue for any reason whatsoever, and they do. My wife, who works for a silicon valley court system sees this all the time. The from high powered corp lawyer to the crazy cat lady living in a shopping cart. Corporations don't own lawsuits as you appear to be implying.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Bonus points for using "meat of the story".
Michael Crichton had been talking about gene patents for years
read his book titled "Next"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_(novel)
Yes, but at another level you cannot patent in vivo genes as these are a product of nature.
The genes covered by these patents all go through a process where they are isolated. Since the genes in your body are the result of natural processes any such patent suit would have much less than a 90% chance of success.
Let me guess the plot - Science gone mad?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Manage to patent an irrational number and then sue everyone because math shows that everyone have everything there if you dig enough. Then take down the patent system as even them are covered by your patent. And then we can live happily ever after.
People do own their own genes, as they occur in their bodies.
From the Federal Register:
A patent on a gene covers the isolated and purified gene but does not cover the gene as it occurs in nature. Thus, the concern that a person whose body ``includes'' a patented gene could infringe the patent is misfounded. The body does not contain the patented, isolated and purified gene because genes in the body are not in the patented, isolated and purified form. When the patent issued for purified adrenaline about one hundred years ago, people did not infringe the patent merely because their bodies naturally included unpurified adrenaline.
Trying to cover just how much wrong you stuffed into that single sentence would be a task akin to cleaning the Agean Stables. That you say such a thing while you sit on your well-fed ass, in your warm home, taking access to all the 100% clean and safe water and food you could ever want for granted, wearing machine-woven cloth, sitting in front of a machine so incredible it would've been literally indistinguishable from magic 100 years ago (let alone 1000), leads to one of two conclusions:
Either you are a spoiled whinging twit posessed of an ignorance of history as stunning as your lack of perspective, or you are so stupid it's amazing that you remember how to breathe.
explain how a society where "everybody's wants were easily satisfied" evolves into modern industrial society if that initial premise is true?
That's easy. Change in society does not have to be driven by improvement on an individual level. Societies that grow food crop will have higher population growths than societies of hunter-gatherers. As agricultural society expands, it usurps/conquers/murders the neighbouring hunter-gatherer societies. Whether individuals in the agricultural society were happier/more content/healthier is not relevant - they simply had more people, and hence more military power. Same for the industrial revolution.