Can companies patent your genes?

[edward]

There is currently a case before the Supreme Court involving a company that has a patent on a human gene that is a predictor for breast cancer in women.

Myriad Genetics isolated two related types of biological material, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, linked to increased hereditary risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

At issue is whether "products of nature" can be treated the same as "human-made" inventions, and held as the exclusive intellectual property of individuals and companies.

Who owns your genes?
A ruling is expected by late June

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/15/health/court-genes

Asked in 1955 whether his polio vaccine was patented, Jonas Salk replied, “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” With that, Salk debunked the misguided notion of patenting objects found in nature. His polio vaccine was not a new invention but an inactive form of the natural polio virus.

Today, Salk would be shocked to find that your DNA belongs not to you but rather to many companies and institutions that have patents on the DNA from your cells. Forty-one percent of the genes in your genome are not legally yours, according to a long list of gene patents that have been granted since the 1980s. These patents cover thousands of human genes and restrict a doctor’s ability to look at your DNA and plan your medical treatment. These patent claims contradict an intuitive sense that your DNA is no less yours than your lungs or kidneys

Bold mine

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...8307541_1_gene-patents-myriad-s-polio-vaccine

Edited

 

[OmCheeto]

OOPS I got a bit off topic there didn't I. I have a problem discussing the tip of the iceberg without looking at the entire picture. Delete the above post if it is a problem. Please read it first

No!

Patenting such a fundamental piece of the human genome has been opposed by thousands of scientists and clinicians, hundreds of medical organizations, and many Nobel laureates. Some have likened it to patenting elements of the periodic table.

bolding mine

What a great idea. I do hereby patent oxygen. That'll be a penny per breath, thank you very much.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Split off from the monsanto thread

 

[russ_watters]

This issue is overblown. Linked through the CNN article is a description of the underlying issue and its associated long and solid legal precedent.

The article itself though errs in stating that "products of nature" are at issue unless,
1. The USSC is inclined to overturn a mountain of precedent.
2. The USSC is inclined to make a special exception for human "products of nature".

Further discussion: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_patent

 

[FlexGunship]

In cases like this, I'm always curious to know why downplay the process? Patent the PROCESS you follow to extract the information.

You don't have to patent the dirt you're going to dig... just the shovel.

 

[CherryTrooper]

The only problem is that this sort of concern stems from an idea that humans are altruistic and would pursue/fund vast medical discoveries without any incentives what so ever. Maybe I'm just an ethical egoist, but that would probably slow progress a million fold. These patents, etc, need to exist in order to create profit for companies so that we can continue to forge advancements. Why do you think vaccines were ever invented and utilized to begin with? It's cheaper to prevent than to treat. But I will agree that if it's holding back doctors from using the information, something needs to be done. Perhaps a greater more fluid method of exchange.

 

[edward]

Myriad didn't invent the genes, they are products of nature, they merely found them.

"You haven't created a type of gene that does not exist in the body," Justice Antonin Scalia said to the lawyer representing Myriad, according to NPR.

Meanwhile, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the two isolated genes were "just nature sitting there," The New York Times reported.

This case could have huge implications for companies that want to use the two patented Myraid genes in research for breast cancer — which is very common — and ovarian cancer, which is notoriously hard to treat. Currently, companies would have to get permission to do research using those isolated genes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-myriad-case-2013-4#ixzz2URQbRMgh

My personal opinion is that they have nothing to patent. The genes have existed for thousands of years.

 

[edward]

This topic is much more complex than I had thought at first glance. Now I am wondering if the Supreme Court has the expertise to make a valid decision. It is apparent that the lower courts failed to comprehend the sequences as small as 15 nucleotides.

From one of the best in depth links that I have found:

Abstract

The scope and eligibility of patents for genetic sequences have been debated for decades, but a critical case regarding gene patents (Association of Molecular Pathologists v. Myriad Genetics) is now reaching the US Supreme Court. Recent court rulings have supported the assertion that such patents can provide intellectual property rights on sequences as small as 15 nucleotides (15mers), but an analysis of all current US patent claims and the human genome presented here shows that 15mer sequences from all human genes match at least one other gene. The average gene matches 364 other genes as 15mers; the breast-cancer-associated gene BRCA1 has 15mers matching at least 689 other genes. Longer sequences (1,000 bp) still showed extensive cross-gene matches. Furthermore, 15mer-length claims from bovine and other animal patents could also claim as much as 84% of the genes in the human genome. In addition, when we expanded our analysis to full-length patent claims on DNA from all US patents to date, we found that 41% of the genes in the human genome have been claimed. Thus, current patents for both short and long nucleotide sequences are extraordinarily non-specific and create an uncertain, problematic liability for genomic medicine, especially in regard to targeted re-sequencing and other sequence diagnostic assays.

Bold mine

http://genomemedicine.com/content/5/3/27

If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad a large number of other patents will be affected. Then again now is the time to decide if we are going to in any way patent any element of the human body.

The cows I don't care about from an ethics point of view, yet I don't think that anyone will ever make, build, or produce a genuine cow component. No matter how they slice it or dice it they can't produce it without the cow.

 

[Danger]

Simple answer, I own my genes. There is no room for debate. I'm not going to risk another infraction by saying what I would do to anyone who tried to control my DNA. Leave it suffice to be said that the result would not be pretty.

 

[FlexGunship]

Simple answer, I own my genes. There is no room for debate. I'm not going to risk another infraction by saying what I would do to anyone who tried to control my DNA. Leave it suffice to be said that the result would not be pretty.

Contrariwise, would you agree that you DON'T own the process to identify or manipulate those genes?

If anything, genetic processes should be covered by copyright law. You can't patent a word, or even a sentence. But you can copyright a particular arrangement of them. And if you create a device that types out specific words or finds those words in large books, you can patent the device and even the process.

 

[edward]

Contrariwise, would you agree that you DON'T own the process to identify or manipulate those genes?

If anything, genetic processes should be covered by copyright law. You can't patent a word, or even a sentence. But you can copyright a particular arrangement of them. And if you create a device that types out specific words or finds those words in large books, you can patent the device and even the process.

Bold mine

As I see it you have just hit upon what is in question. Myriad did not patent the method, they patented the genetic sequences.

From the link above Myriad's patent covers:

Claim #1. An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2 (the BRCA1 cDNA).

Claim #2. The isolated DNA of claim 1, wherein said DNA has the nucleotide sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:1 (the BRCA1 gene).

Claim #5. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 1

Claim #6. An isolated DNA having at least 15 nucleotides of the DNA of claim 2.

I see this as more of a test case since Myriads patent expires in 2015.

 

[nitsuj]

The only problem is that this sort of concern stems from an idea that humans are altruistic and would pursue/fund vast medical discoveries without any incentives what so ever. Maybe I'm just an ethical egoist, but that would probably slow progress a million fold. These patents, etc, need to exist in order to create profit for companies so that we can continue to forge advancements. Why do you think vaccines were ever invented and utilized to begin with? It's cheaper to prevent than to treat. But I will agree that if it's holding back doctors from using the information, something needs to be done. Perhaps a greater more fluid method of exchange.

the desire for a profit is there, so is the market. The patent reduces risk, as would collaboration. But why share profits when the specific patent law exists.

 

[FlexGunship]

Bold mine

As I see it you have just hit upon what is in question. Myriad did not patent the method, they patented the genetic sequences.

Yes, of course. My first post on this thread was about my curiosity as to why anyone would seek to patent a gene sequence. In my mind, it's a big like patenting a sentence: a conglomeration of bits of information assembled to form something greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Danger]

Contrariwise, would you agree that you DON'T own the process to identify or manipulate those genes?

If anything, genetic processes should be covered by copyright law. You can't patent a word, or even a sentence. But you can copyright a particular arrangement of them. And if you create a device that types out specific words or finds those words in large books, you can patent the device and even the process.

I agree with everything in that post. As was shown in subsequent posts, though, that is not what they're trying to do.

 

[Borek]

Today the United States Supreme Court ruled on the validity of BRAC1 and BRAC2 human gene patents stating that, ‘A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible

See more at: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/prepared-statement-on-the-supreme-court-human-gene-patent-ruling/#sthash.selkff2M.dpuf

 

[Evo]

See more at: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/prepared-statement-on-the-supreme-court-human-gene-patent-ruling/#sthash.selkff2M.dpuf

So, if it is modified, it's not naturally occurring, and can be patented. Seems reasonable.

“Today the United States Supreme Court ruled on the validity of BRAC1 and BRAC2 human gene patents stating that, ‘A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring,’ is consistent with our views on gene patents and is one we support. This ruling is good news for the biotech industry as it clarifies the rules and reduces uncertainty.

- See more at: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/#sthash.selkff2M.trOANSsI.dpuf

 

[nsaspook]

See more at: http://www.jcvi.org/cms/press/press-releases/full-text/article/prepared-statement-on-the-supreme-court-human-gene-patent-ruling/#sthash.selkff2M.dpuf

Full 'split' decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_8njq.pdf