Judge To Big Pharma: You Can't Patent Genes

Illustration for article titled Judge To Big Pharma: You Cant Patent Genes

In a blow struck for consumers and scientists against the pharmaceutical industry, a New York judge ruled yesterday that a company could not patent a human gene just because they discovered it. The ruling could revolutionize the biotech industry.

Advertisement

The ruling grew out of a suit brought by the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation against Myriad Genetics, Inc., which had a patent on a gene which can lead to breast cancer. Refusing to license the gene to other companies, Myriad had a monopoly on tests for the gene, which meant many women were denied the ability to discover whether they had an increased risk for cancer.

According to the AP:

[Judge Robert] Sweet said he invalidated the patents because DNA's existence in an isolated form does not alter the fundamental quality of DNA as it exists in the body nor the information it encodes.

He rejected arguments that it was acceptable to grant patents on DNA sequences as long as they are claimed in the form of "isolated DNA."

"Many, however, including scientists in the fields of molecular biology and genomics, have considered this practice a `lawyer's trick' that circumvents the prohibitions on the direct patenting of the DNA in our bodies but which, in practice, reaches the same result," he said.

The judge said his findings were consistent with Supreme Court rulings that have established that purifying a product of nature does not mean it can be patented.

Advertisement

The ruling that could invalidate patents held on almost 20 percent of the human genome. There is a long-simmering debate within the biotech and scientific communities over whether it makes sense to patent genes. At this point, most scientists agree that patents on genes retard scientific innovation. When companies request a huge fee for somebody to develop medicines related to genes they own, it can cause real harm to people and researchers who can't afford the pharmaceutical companies' asking prices.

The AP continues:

Mary-Claire King, the University of Washington scientist who discovered the first breast cancer predisposition gene, BRCA-1, while at the University of California at Berkeley in 1990, called the ruling "very good news for women who are potential carriers" of cancer genes and their families.

"It will open the door to truly competitive testing. It will allow the science to drive the field instead of the monopolistic approach that has dominated," she said.

Patenting a gene "makes no sense," King said. "It's like patenting one's thumb."

via Associated Press

Advertisement

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

christian-lindfors-old
Christian Lindfors

This is socialism. Big Pharma earned this knowledge with hard work. Why shouldn't they profit from it? You all just want to give away free genes to those that didn't earn them. Why should we have to pay for your free genetic research?

God forbid if a small research outfit will have the ability to compete with our global megacorp in finding a useful and profitable application for the gene that we own. Nope we found and named the gene and now its ours forever. Our profit margins and shareholders will determine how to best use it, not our scientists.

So what if our patented genes can cure Malaria? We use them to treat wrinkles which is much more lucrative. If your poor commie country cant afford to pay us for access then its too bad. Welcome to capitalism and free market crappy African nation. Stop hatin' on our freedom.