Jump to content



Photo

Human genome: US Supreme Court hears patents case

patents human genome pharmaceutical

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:02

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments questioning whether the human genome can be claimed as intellectual property.

The case relates to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union in 2009, and centres on whether companies should be able to patent genes.

US authorities have been awarding patents on genes to universities and medical companies for almost 30 years.

The case may have far-reaching repercussions for future gene research.

Currently, researchers and private companies work to isolate genes in order to use them in tests for gene-related illnesses, and in emerging gene therapies.

According to researchers at Weill Cornell Medical College in the US, patents now cover some 40% of the human genome.

The ACLU lawsuit, filed in conjunction with the Public Patent Foundation, relates to seven patents on two human genes held by US firm Myriad Genetics.


Continued at source... http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-22157410

I'm with the ACLU on this one; how the hell can you patent a gene? It's a naturally occuring part of every human/animal alive! Sure, you can patent ways of detecting specific genes, and ways of manipulating those genes, but I just don't see how some moron could possibly think it was a good idea to let these companies actually patent the gene's themselves!


#2 +virtorio

virtorio

    4089 III

  • 8,411 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 03
  • Location: New Zealand
  • OS: OSX 10.9, Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy SIII

Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:15

Wouldn't that be like putting a patent on gravity?

#3 exotoxic

exotoxic

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,177 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 04
  • Location: England

Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:24

Wouldn't that be like putting a patent on gravity?


Don't give them ideas.

#4 OP FloatingFatMan

FloatingFatMan

    Resident Fat Dude

  • 16,017 posts
  • Joined: 23-August 04
  • Location: UK

Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:25

^ That would be heavy... :p

#5 theyarecomingforyou

theyarecomingforyou

    Tiger Trainer

  • 16,635 posts
  • Joined: 07-August 03
  • Location: Terra Prime Profession: Jaded Sceptic
  • OS: Windows 10 Preview
  • Phone: Galaxy Note 3 with Galaxy Gear

Posted 16 April 2013 - 14:31

The US Supreme Court is well known for its ridiculous rulings but I really don't see how it could rule in favour of this.

#6 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,097 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 April 2013 - 15:14

The justices sounded quote skeptical of the practice..

Personally, I see no problem with the patenting of a genetic modification (ex: inserting code to fix inherited diseases) or a gene sequence made from scrstch or copied from plants & animals, but it stops there. I find it repugnant that some lab could patent part of a prrsons genome that were beneficial (ex: HIV resistance), especially without compensation.

#7 44MLX

44MLX

    Neowinian

  • 721 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 11
  • Location: London
  • OS: Win 8
  • Phone: iPhone 5

Posted 16 April 2013 - 21:46

I think it is stupid for patenting genes. Maybe on how to research on a particular gene or how you modify the gene but not the gene itself.

#8 Buttus

Buttus

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,347 posts
  • Joined: 07-September 05

Posted 16 April 2013 - 21:58

so if a company patents a certain gene, and then if a person comes forward with that gene (that they've had all their life), could they sue the company that has the patent because the person had it before the company?

#9 DocM

DocM

    Neowinian Senior

  • 18,097 posts
  • Joined: 31-July 10
  • Location: Michigan

Posted 16 April 2013 - 23:20

In many states, no. That's what this case is about. In many situations researchers have taken DNA from patients, found useful sequences then patented them without compensating the "donor."

#10 Original Poster

Original Poster

    Systems Developer

  • 3,009 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 08
  • Location: my room
  • OS: windows 7/8, Kali, ubuntu, OSx 10.9
  • Phone: Android

Posted 16 April 2013 - 23:46

In many states, no. That's what this case is about. In many situations researchers have taken DNA from patients, found useful sequences then patented them without compensating the "donor."


thats wrong... owner ship is that singular person if there has to be an owner.... only specific experiments upon genes should ever be allowed to be patented

#11 Growled

Growled

    Neowinian Senior

  • 41,508 posts
  • Joined: 17-December 08
  • Location: USA

Posted 17 April 2013 - 00:55

US authorities have been awarding patents on genes to universities and medical companies for almost 30 years.


This may be one of the dumbest things they ever done, and that's saying a lot.

#12 SALSN

SALSN

    Neowinian

  • 46 posts
  • Joined: 02-February 12

Posted 18 April 2013 - 13:26

I thought you could not patent exciting stuff, and well non of the companies actually invented the genes, they just decoded them.

Also, doesn't that mean that we all have to pay royalties to them, if they choose to collect?
Of course that makes no sense, and that is exactly my point!

#13 LaP

LaP

    Forget about it

  • 6,079 posts
  • Joined: 10-July 06
  • Location: Quebec City, Canada
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro Update 1

Posted 18 April 2013 - 13:46

This is going way too far.

Monsanto is already extremely borderline. Going further with patenting life anf nature would simply be insane.