Pick a side and defend your position. You must formulate a legitimate argument, as well as discount someone else's argument. Use facts and/or possible issues arising from the SCOTUS decision. Do not make or take it personal.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/supreme-court-weighs-whether-human-genes-can-be-patented/print#ixzz2QYFoNXVz
Supreme Court weighs whether human genes can be patented
Published April 15, 2013
Associated Press
DNA may be the building block of life, but can something taken from it also be the building block of a multimillion-dollar medical monopoly?
The Supreme Court grapples Monday with the question of whether human genes can be patented. Its ultimate answer could reshape U.S. medical research, the fight against diseases like breast and ovarian cancer and the multi-billion dollar medical and biotechnology business.
"The intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have a significant impact on other patents -- for antibiotics, vaccines, hormones, stem cells and diagnostics on infectious microbes that are found in nature," Robert Cook-Deegan, director for genome ethics, law & policy at Duke University, said in a statement.
"This could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels and other applications," he said.
The nine justices' decision will also have a profound effect on American business, with billions of dollars of investment and years of research on the line. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been awarding patents on human genes for almost 30 years.
And Myriad Genetics alone has $500 million invested in the patents being argued over in this case. Without the ability to recoup that investment, breakthrough scientific discoveries needed to combat all kind of medical maladies wouldn't happen, the company says.
"Countless companies and investors have risked billions of dollars to research and develop scientific advances under the promise of strong patent protection," said Peter D. Meldrum, the president and CEO of Myriad Genetics, in a statement.
But their opponents argue that allowing companies like Myriad to patent human genes or parts of human genes will slow down or cripple lifesaving medical research like in the battle against breast cancer.
"What that means is that no other researcher or doctor can develop an additional test, therapy or conduct research on these genes," said Karuna Jagger, executive director of Breast Cancer Action.
The Supreme Court has already said that abstract ideas, natural phenomena and laws of nature cannot be given a patent, which gives an inventor the right to prevent others from making, using or selling a novel device, process or application.
Myriad's case involves patents on two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Myriad's BRACAnalysis test looks for mutations on the breast cancer predisposition gene, or BRCA. Those mutations are associated with much greater risks of breast and ovarian cancer.
Women with a faulty gene have a three to seven times greater risk of developing breast cancer and a higher risk of ovarian cancer. Men can also carry a BRCA mutation, raising their risk of prostate, pancreatic and other types of cancer.
The mutations are most common in people of eastern European Jewish descent.
Myriad sells the only BRCA gene test.
The American Civil Liberties Union challenged Myriad's patents, arguing that genes couldn't be patented, and in March 2010 a New York district court agreed. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now twice ruled that genes can be patented. In Myriad's case, it's because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body.
Mark C. Capone, president of Myriad Genetics Laboratories, Inc., a subsidiary of Myriad, said some of the concerns over what they have patented are overblown and some simply incorrect.
"Myriad cannot, should not and has not patented genes as they exist in the human body on DNA," Capone said in an interview. "This case is truly about isolated DNA molecules which are synthetic chemicals created by the human ingenuity of man that have very important clinical utilities, which is why this was eligible for a patent."
But the ACLU is arguing that isolating the DNA molecules doesn't stop them from being DNA molecules, which they say aren't patentable.
"Under this theory, Hans Dehmelt, who won the Nobel Prize for being the first to isolate a single electron from an atom, could have patented the electron itself," said Christopher A. Hansen, the ACLU's lawyer in court papers. "A kidney removed from the body (or gold extracted from a stream) would be patentable subject matter."
The Obama administration seems to agree. Artificially created DNA can be patented, but "isolated but otherwise unmodified genomic DNA is not patent-eligible," Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said in court papers.
That was the ruling of the original judge who looked at Myriad's patents after they were challenged by the ACLU in 2009. U.S. District 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 or the information it encodes. But the federal appeals court reversed him in 2011, saying Myriad's genes can be patented because the isolated DNA has a "markedly different chemical structure" from DNA within the body.
The Supreme Court threw out that decision and sent the case back to the lower courts for rehearing. This came after the
high court unanimously threw out patents on a Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., test that could help doctors set drug doses for autoimmune diseases like Crohn's disease, saying the laws of nature are unpatentable.
But the federal circuit upheld Myriad's patents again in August, leading to the current review. The court will rule before the end of the summer.
"The key issue now for the court will therefore be whether the scientist working in the lab to isolate a particular gene innovated in a way that allows for that isolated gene to be patented," said Bruce Wexler, a lawyer with the law firm Paul Hastings, who advises pharmaceutical and biotech companies on patent issues.
The case is 12-398, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/15/supreme-court-weighs-whether-human-genes-can-be-patented/print#ixzz2QYFoNXVz
I believe that human genes should not be patent. If they do, it will slow down medical research that can be potentially life saving. I feel like once a company has patented it, the only thing that will be in their heads will be the profit rather than the real purpose of creating these genes. Something that is as important as human genetics and finding treatments for things such as breast cancer, are too important to allow just one company to have its patent without letting other scientists and medical researchers to continue on the research.
ReplyDeleteLike Lizbeth, I believe human genes should not be able to get patented. Genes are complicated structures that may take years and years to research to be able to understand them. Allowing companies to patent genes will only slow down research progress. If more scientists are able to research these genes, progress will come much quicker. Companies and should have the goal of researching and discovering new genes and how they can be used to benefit people, not for profit. These companies did not create these genes, so they should not have the rights to patent them; however, if companies did create a gene, they should have the right to patent. It's ridiculous how a company can sue someone for researching "their" gene just because the scientist/medical researcher wants to help. Gene patents are slowing down the scientific process and should only be allowed under certain conditions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Uyen and Lizbeth. Human genes should not be able to patented. Controlling a basic building block of life is wrong, mine as well control the whole individual. Wait a minute, that goes against the 14th amendment in the Constitution so therefore, people in the United States have no right to patent human genes. But what about everyone who isn't in the United States? Life isn't a business. Businesses do not have feelings or emotions. They can't be allowed to take control of what makes human beings unique. Gene patents would totally ruin life as we know it.
ReplyDeletep.s. Since human genes are different from person to person, a patent wouldnt be able to encompass all human genes. There would have to be millions upon millions. It would be costly and basically serve very little perpose.
I don't think that human genes should be patented. First of all, patents could delay the development of diagnostics and therapeutics because of how expensive or how much money would be put into patents. Also, it seems that altering or controlling the human body is becoming a big issue since that's what most of the new scientific discoveries are leading to. The human body should be allowed to naturally heal and be left alone. I basically agree with what the Joey, Uyen, and Liz said. It is more useful to let scientists research and find actual cures for things like breast cancer.
ReplyDeleteI don't think human genes should be allowed to be patented. Companies would be more concerned over the patent and the money it will bring to them then dining a cure for a deadly disease such as different types of cancers. How could they just patent one set of genes when they vary from person to person. We can't go patent each of them. The body should be left to heal naturally and patents would slow the research process down. I agree with Uyen that companies should want to create new genes and see how they would benefit people instead of trying to patent other people's genes. Let science be science!
ReplyDeletePatenting a gene is something that shouldn't be done. Doing this would merely hinder the advancement to many possible breakthroughs. Instead of focusing on patenting many different organizations should combine their efforts to make a cure for the faulty genes.
ReplyDeleteThe human body is complicated yet interesting, and every day scientists discover new things about it. Inside of all humans are thousands of genes. To place a patent on them seems insane. All of our lives we are taught to believe humans are NOT objects. We are important individuals that are worth more than any amount of money, and these patents treat us like we are some gadget thought up of by a bored dad. The company is just trying to get back the money it took to research the genes. Like we learn in school, working with other individuals can be very beneficial. Different minds have different things to offer, and denying someone access to help research on the genes seems pretty ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteWe all basically agree with each other here, so there is not much room to debate. I just see an issue in the second comment. It is one side or the other, which was evident from the beginning but as you read further, you come across "...under certain conditions." It is quite an on-the-fence response.
I believe it is wrong to patent genes that were naturally created. If a company were to patent a gene they could become a monopoly and only think of money. Plus a patent will stop all others from conducting research on the gene and that would hinder progress towards breakthroughs.
ReplyDeleteI don't think genes should be allow to be patented. Especially if the the research can have life threatening illnesses like cancer. Allowing it to be patented will slow down how long it would take to reach possible life saving results and finds. Patenting something like that would be cruel to the people suffering of cancer and that could be helped by allowing multiple labs to research the genes.
ReplyDeleteI do not think genes should be patented. The research of the gene could save lives and if it is patented, then the company is only thinking about money. People would die and treatments could not come out if genes are patented. Also, genes are in DNA and that is a part of a human, and humans are not patented.
ReplyDeleteLike many of my classmates, I do not believe that genes should be patented. The companies will only think of money and will refuse to save a life if they cannot make a payment. Making people suffer because they do not have money is inhumane. We already do that in today's society. Genes are a part of humans and should not belong to a company.
ReplyDeleteIn order for something to be patented, it has to be an invention. Well clearly, you can't just invent genes using some turbo monster machine . Genes were actually more of a discovery through years of research . My standpoint on this is that human genes should not be patented, because that's like the villain to scientific advancement . We are suppose to move on forward and one day perhaps find a cure to cancer and other medicial issues. Yet, I forgot we live in a semi-corrupted world, where one selfish action can cripple future researches and discoveries.
ReplyDeleteIf a company patent genes, then they would be too money focus since everyone is going to have to get "permission" or most likely pay a load some of money just to use to the genes . We need to think of what would benefit the society as a whole . Patenting genes will obviously not benefit the whole, because like stated before it slows down researching processes and quick advancements/discoveries will be delayed .
Not much to debate or argue here, since the classmates' opinions are all on the same side . We are f a m i l y !