With more
advances and discovers being made in science everyday, researchers look to
protect their hard work through patents. While patenting has been around for
quite some time, new ideas in science are causing lawmakers to question the
guidelines of patent laws. Specifically when it comes to genetics, the Supreme
Court was recently faced with the difficult decision of deciding what can be
and what cannot be patented. In a decision of 0-9 they have decided what
companies can patent and call their own and what is natural and cannot be patented.
Full strands of DNA which include coding and non coding sequences cannot be
patented however cDNA which include just short coding sequences can be
patented. An exception to this is short sequences that are indistinguishable
from human DNA. Those cannot be patented. This ruling is justifiable with
saying that anything that is not naturally found in humans such as these
“abridged sequenced” cDNA strands can be patented.
This recent court case was stemmed
from the fight over the patent for mutant BRCA1
and BRCA2 genes also known as the breast cancer genes. Myriad, the research
company that identified that these mutant genes led to the development of
breast cancer then patented them. They owned the rights to test women for these
genes and determine their risk of breast cancer. In response others in the
cancer community fought back saying that this patent inhibits their research
and drives up the cost of breast cancer testing. Shortly after these genes were
patented 20% of the human genome was also patented by various others. The court
ruled that 5 of their patents were DNA while the other 500 were cDNA. This
court ruling plays a critical role in where science is headed and how
researchers conduct their work. They will need to shift their studies to follow
the guidelines of this ruling or risk not receiving a patent on their research.
Link:
http://www.dailytech.com/Supreme+Court+Gives+Mixed+Verdict+on+Patenting+Human+Genes/article31760.htm
Related link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/13/supreme-court-dna-ruling_n_3435274.html
The discussion of what can and cannot be patented is perplexing and a debate I had not thought about before taking this course. I agree with the Supreme Court decision that what is natural cannot be patented and is a definite decision that leaves room for little further debate. The case of Myriad patenting BRCA1 and BRCA2 infuriates me. That a company would withhold information that can used by other researchers to help find a cure for one of the most horrific diseases simply so they can benefit disgusts me! I am glad that they were not able to withhold the information on the naturally occurring DNA.
ReplyDelete