Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

[sharon sanders]

:applause:

Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

By Robert Barnes, Updated: Thursday, June 13, 12:46 PM
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a decision that could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and agriculture.

The ruling was a split decision for Myriad Genetics Inc., which holds patents on genes that have been linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that merely isolating those specific genes — called BRCA1 and BRCA2 — was not worthy of a patent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...c55d2-d43d-11e2-a73e-826d299ff459_story.html#

 

[Emily]

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/06/13/supreme-court-rejects-human-gene-patents-sort-of/

Advertisement
Daniel Fisher

Daniel Fisher, Forbes Staff
I cover finance, the law, and how the two interact.
Personal Finance
6/13/2013 @ 11:06AM |12,872 views
Supreme Court Rejects Human-Gene Patents -- Sort Of
[snip]
In Myriad, the high court held cDNA is patentable, because it involves actual work in the laboratory and inverts the normal process found in nature. The synthetic DNA is an edited version of a gene, stripped of non-coding regions that the court said makes it ?not naturally occurring.?

Critics say even the edited sequences are directly analogous to naturally occurring DNA. ?That may be so,? Thomas wrote, ?but the lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made.?

Jarrell, who has a doctorate in biochemistry from the University of California in addition to a Harvard Law degree, said Thomas is wrong. Not only do researchers make cDNA with naturally occurring tools, but the exact same process can occur naturally in the body.
[snip]
He [Gaede] also noted an ironic side effect of today?s decision. Some companies are working on human antibodies that are purified of the proteins left over from mouse antibodies that are their frequent source. But the closer the antibody comes to the pure human sequence, he said, the more likely it is to run afoul of Myriad.

?You may want to have something that is as close to nature as possible,? he said, but drug companies will have to consider whether that makes it harder for them to recover their investment.

 

[Emily]

Re: Supreme Court rules human genes may not be patented

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021184905_genesidebarxml.html

Originally published June 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM | Page modified June 14, 2013 at 6:29 AM

UW geneticist who discovered breast-cancer genes flying high over Supreme Court ruling

By Sandi Doughton

Seattle Times science reporter
The University of Washington geneticist who discovered the breast-cancer genes at the heart of the Supreme Court?s landmark decision said Thursday that she?s ?as high as the flag on the Fourth of July.?

?The Supreme Court ruling is splendid for patients, their families, their physicians, scientists and common sense,? Mary-Claire King wrote in an email.
[snip]
?It seems to me that the fruits of work paid for by the public ... should be freely available to the public,? King wrote.

King?s quest to prove that genetic mutations are responsible for breast cancers that run in families is dramatized in the new film ?Decoding Annie Parker.?

It was while she was working at the University of California, Berkeley that King discovered the first breast-cancer genes and mapped them to a specific chromosome. But scientists at the University of Utah, who won the race to clone the genes, patented them and formed Myriad Genetics to market the tests...