How do you feel about corporations owning genes within the human body?

I don’t see how this will not end in disaster.

About the same as I feel about the government filing away every baby’s dna without parents knowing.

I know I’m splitting hairs, but the patent doesn’t give them ownership over parts of the human body. The patent gave Myriad Genetics the exclusive legal right to use that sequence of genes for 20 years in any product that they may create based on that sequence. They can’t come into your home and demand that you pay them a royalty for naturally using that gene in your body. They can, however, demand that other corporations pay a royalty for using the genes in their products.

Also, note this discussion.

You develop it, you own it. Would you rather there be no development?
But once it is deployed, a body’s home free. They aren’t going to tattoo your ass, property of Pfizer Co. and turn you over to their research facility morgue upon death.

How do you feel about the indigent who sell their bodies in advance to university medical departments and get just such a tattoo? {or is this an urban legend?]

They may have been created by nature but they have been edited and published by Myriad.

There is an extant ACLU lawsuit on this very issue which just got a favorable ruling from a court. The case will undoubtedly be appealed by Myriad, but they are on awfully shaky ground since a “product of nature” is not patentable under our laws.

From what I understand, companies have to patent the gene in order to own the rights to treatments developed that use the gene. I’m guessing that this means if you have a “good” version of a gene, and you want to somehow introduce it to the body of a sick person so that it can help that body work “correctly,” then you need to own the gene,

Why? Because if you don’t, than anyone can come along after you’ve developed the process and use the gene to do the same thing without paying you any royalties. If you don’t allow them to patent genes, the argument goes, then there will be no incentive for research and development, since once you’ve figured something out, anyone can come along and steal the idea from you and use it. You’re out R&D spending and someone else makes a profit and you go under. Ergo, no more R&D into treatments relying on specific genes. Or something like that.

I know it has to do with intellectual property and the ability to make money.

How do you feel about the commercial use of “biological waste” AKA aborted human foetuses?

It is more of a trademark than a patent.

However, I feel that this case makes it painfully obvious that the laws regarding intellectual property are, at best, fucked up.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard don’t tell me you aren’t interested taking part in National Geographic’s project to collect DNA from as many people as possible for research?

@anartist, with people’s consent, sure why not. Mandatory? No.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard point taken

If the price is right.

That’s fine. I’m placing a patent on the air they breathe.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies All’s fair in love, war, and the marketpklace. LOL

I read recently where the government has taken an interest in putting a stop to this.

There is a lawsuit pending, @YARNLADY. See above.

They have patented the information they’ve spent lots of time, effort, and money researching not the gene itself. The information is the fruit of much labor and should fall within accepted patent law (I believe). Without the ability to patent the results of high cost ventures companies can’t guarantee that the cost could be offset by exclusive rights to make products using their developments. Without being able to pay off high cost ventures companies will be much more wary about setting off on them in the first place. If research won’t eventually result in increased profits why bother at all?

Well, @Shuttle128 so far the courts do not follow your analysis.

@dpworkin Unfortunately, it’s just one court. One court going against long-established precedent for the first time ever. I’m not sure if we’ll see a sea change in the established law, but Myriad has indicated that it will appeal the case. We’ll see what the higher court says about it.

The court may rule in favor of the greater good (which I believe should be to dissolve the patent on the genes) but that doesn’t change what patent law is supposed to do. There’s been a fine line between public good and private company good for a long time caused by patents. I think the overall public good should be considered very closely in these rulings. We may find that the decreased interest in company research on genetics and disease (after a court ruling to dissolve the patent) will decrease overall well-being more than allowing such patents.

No person or corporation should ever own the “rights” to any part of the human body.

So if they patent the “breast cancer gene,” does that mean every woman with breast cancer will have to pay royalties?

(Yes, I’m being facetious. I don’t think genes should be patented.)

Why do you guys think the information about a gene should not be protected by patents?

Because it would be a benefit to all mankind to have it be public knowledge?

What about Thomas Edison? He patented many devices that would have benefited all mankind yet no one argued about the legitimacy of him patenting the information he discovered about making such devices. Let’s not have double standards here. Are people (and by extension companies) not entitled to the fruits of their labor? There are plenty of genetic companies that patent information on sequences in plants or animals, why is it any different that this patent is on a gene found in humans?

Because our patent law precludes patenting anything that is manifestly a work of nature, and these guys don’t know how to make a gene.

Many other companies have patented genes as well, albeit most of these are lab produced. Claiming a law of nature and claiming information about genes that abide by laws of nature seems inherently different to me. How genes interact in general would be considered a law of nature. This is already known and cannot be patented. Patenting the structure of a certain gene does not claim a law of nature. This ruling doesn’t seem to be within the spirit of what patents but I think I see where you’re coming from.

I’m just repeating the legal reasoning that the judge ratified in Myriad’s recent loss. That doesn’t mean that someone else in the judiciary won’t go the other way. You may recall that Jonas Salk, when asked if the polio vaccine were patented said, “You don’t patent the sun.”

I’m fine as long as those corporations pay royalties for using gravity the next time they board a plan. Otherwise they won’t be allowed to land.

Seriously, they can patent gene therapy methods but not genes.