Human genome: US Supreme Court hears patents case

[FloatingFatMan]

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!

[+virtorio MVC]

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

[exotoxic]

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

Don't give them ideas.

[FloatingFatMan]

^ That would be heavy... :p

[theyarecomingforyou]

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.

[DocM]

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.

[44MLX]

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.

[Buttus]

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?

[DocM]

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."

[Original Poster]

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

[Growled Member]

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.

[SALSN]

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!

[LaP]

This is going way too far.

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