US judge strikes down patent on cancer genes

NEW YORK (AP) - In a ruling with potentially far-reaching implications for the patenting of human genes, a judge on Monday struck down a company's patents on two genes linked to an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet challenging whether anyone can hold patents on human genes was expected to have broad implications for the biotechnology industry and genetics-based medical research.

I think this was a good ruling, but it didn’t need to be that— if they had gone for patent pools.

Good piece on this:
http://www6.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/papers/biotechPatent.html
*snip*
Even companies that do not issue “stacking” licenses might still set very high licensing fees that could undermine access to materials and methods in biotechnology.[26]

For example, many commentators have complained that Myriad Genetics has set an exorbitant fee for licensing its test for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, which are associated with high rates of breast and ovarian cancer.

Myriad charges $2300 to perform the test and has licensed only a few laboratories to conduct the test for about $1200.[27] Some commentators have argued that Myriad’s licensing practices have had a negative impact on women’s health, as well as the development of predictive and diagnostic testing for breast cancer.[28] Myriad’s licensing practices have also created an international controversy as some European countries have challenged its monopoly.[29]

In theory, a patent pool could help overcome some of these potential problems related to licensing in biotechnology, since it would make it easier to negotiate licenses, would eliminate blocking patents, and would exert some market pressure to lower licensing prices.[30]

Invent drugs based on that knowledge maybe. It’s beyond ridiculous to patent genes that nature made. How about patenting copper or gold?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/13/opinion/13crichton.html
MICHAEL CRICHTON
“Humans share mostly the same genes. The same genes are found in other animals as well. Our genetic makeup represents the common heritage of all life on earth. You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.

The results have been disastrous. Ordinarily, we imagine patents promote innovation, but that’s because most patents are granted for human inventions. Genes aren’t human inventions, they are features of the natural world. As a result these patents can be used to block innovation, and hurt patient care.

For example, Canavan disease is an inherited disorder that affects children starting at 3 months; they cannot crawl or walk, they suffer seizures and eventually become paralyzed and die by adolescence. Formerly there was no test to tell parents if they were at risk. Families enduring the heartbreak of caring for these children engaged a researcher to identify the gene and produce a test. Canavan families around the world donated tissue and money to help this cause.

When the gene was identified in 1993, the families got the commitment of a New York hospital to offer a free test to anyone who wanted it. But the researcher’s employer, Miami Children’s Hospital Research Institute, patented the gene and refused to allow any health care provider to offer the test without paying a royalty. The parents did not believe genes should be patented and so did not put their names on the patent. Consequently, they had no control over the outcome.”

“They should be able to patent their test for the genes, if it is a unique procedure, otherwise not. The very idea of being able to patent genes themselves is silly. Our patent system is screwed up enough without this nonsense.”

I offer a good reason why they should be allowed to patent it and all you say is that such patents are silly?

"They should be able to patent their test for the genes, if it is a unique procedure, otherwise not. The very idea of being able to patent genes themselves is silly. Our patent system is screwed up enough without this nonsense."

Reminded me of this: US Patent 5,443,036.

Next thing are corporate lawyers: Oh, you're alive and have these genes? You're not allowed to have them unless you pay us this royalty.

‘The parents did not believe genes should be patented and so did not put their names on the patent. Consequently, they had no control over the outcome.”

So basically what you’re saying is that if I leave a bag of money on the street, no one should be able to pick it up? That’s what it sounds like these people did.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.