companies cannot patent human genes
In the most high profile of the decisions it handed down today, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that companies cannot patent human genes. The case involved Myriad Genetics, a Utah-based company that had isolated and patented two genes linked to breast cancer.
According to some estimates, up to 20 percent of the human genome has now been patented -- though that figure is disputed -- and opponents of such patents, like the U.S. Association for Molecular Pathology argue that such patents slow down the pace of scientific research. "In the case of the BRCA genes, Myriad's lab is the only place in the country that performs full sequencing of the genes for diagnostic purposes," they wrote, joining the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation in the suit that led to today's decision.
In majority ruling, Justice Clarence Thomas writes, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated..." The court also ruled that synthetically created cDNA, which does not occur in nature, can still be patented.
The unanimous decision indicates a wide bipartisan consensus on this issue, which makes sense as it combines the sanctity of life concerns of conservatives and liberals' concerns over corporate overreach. But the issue has been handled somewhat differently in other countries' legal systems.
In fact, Australia's Federal Court ruled in favor of Myriad in February after a very similar suit was brought by a cancer foundation there. In that case, the justices ruled that "the two genes, isolated from their natural cells in which they were found, constituted a "manner of manufacture" and could therefore be patented." That decision is currently being appealed and the government is considering legislation to limit genetic patents.
In Europe, the patentability of genetic materially is legally protected by the EU's Biotech Directive, which holds that "biological material which is isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process" may be patentable "even if it previously occurred in nature." As Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News explains, legal challenges to the directive have not met with much luck:
The Biotech Directive was first proposed in 1988. In the face of extensive opposition from a number of groups, the European Parliament took 10 years to pass the bill. The legality of the Biotech Directive was then challenged by the Dutch government.
This resulted in the European Court of Justice (ECJ; the highest court in Europe) ruling, in 2001, that the patenting of genetic material isolated from the human body does not contravene any principles of human dignity. Given this and the difficulties that were faced in passing the Biotech Directive, it is doubtful that European legislature would have the desire to revisit the issue.
The distinction provides an interesting parallel to the issue of internet privacy. As my colleague Alicia Wittmeyer recently wrote, in terms of legal norms and public attitudes, Europeans have traditionally been more accepting of government intrusions on personal privacy than Americans, but less accepting of corporate intrustions. But in the case of biological material, European firms may now have a lot more leeway than their American counterparts
http://ideas.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201...ne_patents --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
was it something I said?