The document, carefully described as Landers personal view, argues that Utah-based Myriad has patented products of nature, which are ineligible for such protection. The patents, Lander argues, are an insurmountable barrier to studying the DNA, with serious repercussions for medical progress. <\/p>\n
Although the brief is filed in support of neither party, it is a strong critique of the reasoning that has been used to protect the gene patents that Myriad holds on BRCA1 and BRCA2, breast cancer risk genes for which it sells a diagnostic test. In his brief, Lander proposes a thought experiment, asking the court to consider what would have occurred if such restrictive patents had been taken on HIV. <\/p>\n
The patent holder would have been legally entitled to use his patent to block anyone from observing, characterizing or analyzing the virus by any means whatsoever. Scientists would not have been able to rapidly learn the secrets of this insidious virus; drug developers would not have been able to develop life-saving drugs; technologists would not have been able to develop effective diagnostics; and patients would not have been able to know their HIV status, Lander wrote. To their credit, the discoverers of HIV obtained appropriately narrow patents that do not exclude others from observing, characterizing and analyzing naturally occurring HIV. <\/p>\n
To build his argument, Lander gets back to basic biology. The federal Circuit Court, which ruled in favor of Myriads patents, had reasoned that the isolated DNA fragments of the human genome patented by Myriad were not products of nature because they required human intervention to be cleaved out of the chromosome. <\/p>\n
Lander, however, notes that for three decades, scientists have known that isolated DNA fragments occur naturally. Every time a cell dies, chromosomal DNA is broken into fragments. DNA fragments are found in cells, urine, spit, and stool. They are found in the blood of people with cancer, viral infections, stroke, or traumaand even in samples taken from people who exercise excessively. Analyzing such fragments in a pregnant womans blood is already used as a prenatal test to flag chromosomal disorders in fetuses. Fragments that contain the exact breast cancer genes on which Myriad holds patents were found in two studies, Lander notes. <\/p>\n
He goes on to argue that understanding the genome, such as the risks conferred by a gene, is not an invention, but rather is more akin to discovery of a law of Nature. <\/p>\n
The Myriad case is due to be heard before the Supreme Court in April. The biotechnology industry argues that if the patents arent upheld, such a decision could erode much of the foundation for a wide array of businesses that range from pharmaceutical companies to agricultural companies. Scientific organizations and patient groups have argued that the patents impede research, and even patients ability to know their own risks. <\/p>\n
Lander suggests that the court could rule carefully on the Myriad case without endangering the broader industry. The court could rule as invalid patents on fragments of the human genome, while allowing patents on DNA obtained through a process that involves reverse- engineering a DNA blueprint from other genetic material that produces proteins. <\/p>\n
Science is the systematic and cumulative study of the natural world, Lander wrote. For scientific progress to proceed, scientists must have the ability to study the handiwork of Nature. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the original here: The document, carefully described as Landers personal view, argues that Utah-based Myriad has patented products of nature, which are ineligible for such protection. The patents, Lander argues, are an insurmountable barrier to studying the DNA, with serious repercussions for medical progress. Continue reading
\nEric Lander, human genome project leader, weighs in on Supreme Court gene patenting case<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"