What's at issue is not the "right to patent human genes" but the right to patent in vitro copies of human genes. The claim from one of the primary patents at issue:<p>"An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2"<p>Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself.<p>Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients.<p>Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.
This is the money quote that summarizes the view of ~everyone in clinical care:<p>“You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.
>>Runi Limary, a 36-year-old breast cancer survivor, told USA TODAY that one of the patented genes showed up in her body when she was 28. Suspecting ovarian cancer, she debated having her ovaries removed, but couldn’t get a second opinion because Myriad held a patent on the mutated gene that she developed.<<<p>What ! ?
>The group claims that the patents violate the First Amendment by restricting the free exchange of ideas on human body parts.<p>It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation.<p>In a comment about patents two days ago (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438</a>), I linked to a talk which also brought up the fist Amendment issue with patents, and how it connect to software patents. You can also just read it (and thus jump directly to the related parts) in this transcript: <a href="http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/BilskiAndBeyondTranscript" rel="nofollow">http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/Bils...</a>
ars technica has considerably better coverage here: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-court-end-human-gene-patents-after-three-decades/" rel="nofollow">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-...</a>
As ridiculous as this patent attempt is by itself, I find it even more amusing/alarming that an American court is seen as the appropriate body to sit in judgement of the human genome.
Well, this is frightening. Common sense dictates that human genes should not be patented, but with the current climate in this country, I'm not sure if common sense will prevail.
Ridiculous.<p>Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question.<p>I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good.<p>Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get.<p>A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly.<p><a href="http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829" rel="nofollow">http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829</a>