The Supreme Court on Monday seemed skeptical that a human gene can be patented but also worried about what a decision to bar such patents would mean for private scientific inquiry and research. <\/p>\n
Even the normally confident justices expressed some trepidation as they considered the complexities of patent law and the mysteries of biochemistry. They talked about the introns and exons that are parts of genes, but spent more time on simpler illustrations: baseball bats, a hypothetical plant in the Amazon with miraculous powers, the recipe for chocolate-chip cookies. <\/p>\n
The justices caution is warranted: The decision could shape the future of medical and genetic research and have profound effects on pharmaceuticals and genetically modified crops. <\/p>\n
The court is considering a challenge to a decision to award a patent to Myriad Genetics for isolating human genes that indicate a hereditary disposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Doctors and patients must use the diagnostic test that Myriad has developed, and others are restricted from research in that area. <\/p>\n
The patents are being challenged by organizations of physicians and researchers, geneticists, patients and others who say that the snippets of DNA are products of nature and may not be patented, even though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued such patents for decades. <\/p>\n
The challengers were represented by Christopher A. Hansen of the American Civil Liberties Union. He told the court that Myriad did not deserve a patent because it did not invent anything. <\/p>\n
The genes themselves ... where they start and stop, what they do, what they are made of, and what happens when they go wrong are all decisions that were made by nature, not by Myriad, Hansen said. <\/p>\n
Now, Myriad deserves credit for having unlocked these secrets. Myriad does not deserve a patent for it. <\/p>\n
The justices did not so much disagree with Hansen as they did worry about the consequences of not rewarding companies that invest so much money in genetic discoveries. <\/p>\n
What does Myriad get out of this deal? asked Justice Elena Kagan. Why shouldnt we worry that Myriad or companies like it will just say, Well, you know, were not going to do this work anymore? <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Go here to read the rest: The Supreme Court on Monday seemed skeptical that a human gene can be patented but also worried about what a decision to bar such patents would mean for private scientific inquiry and research. Even the normally confident justices expressed some trepidation as they considered the complexities of patent law and the mysteries of biochemistry Continue reading
\nSupreme Court considers gene patents<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"