Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 07 2014, @03:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the can-you-patent-the-gene-detector? dept.

Last year, the US Supreme Court finally banned patents on human genes ( http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/06/supreme-court-blocks-patenting-of-genomic-dna/ ) after they were handed out by the US Patent and Trademark Office for decades.

The effort was powered by the ACLU and Public Patent Foundation, who gathered a group of plaintiffs who were paying high prices for the patented gene tests on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

Now Canada is about to see a similar suit. The Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) has filed suit ( http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CHEO.complaint.pdf ) (PDF) in Canadian federal court seeking to invalidate patents related to "Long QT syndrome," an inherited heart disorder that affects somewhere between 1 in 3000 and 1 in 5000 people. The patents were created at the University of Utah. That's the same US university that was connected to the landmark Myriad case. University of Utah got patents on the BRCA genes, and then licensed them exclusively to Myriad Genetics.

CHEO tests kids for Long QT along with more than 20 other genetic disorders. According to the lawsuit, it can't get certified by the Ontario government to do the test itself, because of patents owned by the University of Utah.

"Genes are not inventions," said Dr. Gail Graham of the hospital's genetics department during a press conference on Monday. "They belong to all of us."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/canadian-hospital-sick-of-us-test-monopoly-sues-to-stop-gene-patents/

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @04:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @04:14PM (#113854)

    The patenting of life is even more absurd then old religion related jokes and perhaps even more dangerous.

  • (Score: 2) by physicsmajor on Friday November 07 2014, @04:45PM

    by physicsmajor (1471) on Friday November 07 2014, @04:45PM (#113862)

    To be fair, the genes in question belong to some of us. Not all of us. The prevalence of long QT syndrome is far from 100%. They should dial back the hyperbole a little.

    But I absolutely agree with their assessment. Handing out a monopoly for testing crucial conditions is terrible, horrible practice. It's just guaranteeing extortion of patients and clinicians who need the information. The root issue is that the wrong thing was granted protection. Patenting one, specific method of testing - the method, not the underlying code/mutation - would be reasonable, as this could be protected while allowing other labs to independently develop their own tests for the same condition.

    Allowing the basic code to be "protected" is insane and reprehensible on its face. The result is nobody else can look for that specific piece of information by any means whatsoever, for reasons. Fuck that. Pure genetic patents must die.

    • (Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday November 07 2014, @05:59PM

      by Sir Garlon (1264) on Friday November 07 2014, @05:59PM (#113892)

      As the summary says, pure genetic patents have died, at least in the US.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    • (Score: 2) by tibman on Friday November 07 2014, @06:24PM

      by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 07 2014, @06:24PM (#113904)

      Agreed. The patent can apply for a non-obvious and specific method of testing for that DNA pattern. The pattern itself has always existed. Only the testing for it is new. I must now point out that identifying a specific pattern does take money and research. If that pattern can be easily copied then we are greatly reducing the incentive for people to map genes to diseases and so on. Maybe that is okay, i don't know. But it should at least be recognized.

      --
      SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mattie_p on Friday November 07 2014, @06:49PM

        by mattie_p (13) on Friday November 07 2014, @06:49PM (#113911) Journal

        To be a pedant, the genetic pattern has not "always" existed. That would imply an unchanging and static universe, which is factually incorrect.

        The tested genetic pattern was introduced via genetic mutation at some point in the past, the timing of which can be approximated utilizing a molecular clock, although the specific calculated dates have a wide error bar.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @07:38PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 07 2014, @07:38PM (#113918)

        Removing patents doesn't inhibit research; it inhibits capatilistic utilisation of the research. The boundries of knowledge are not pushed back by money or the drive to it, but the need and yearning to understand; the world is carved up in to squares to traded by the need and yearning to possess things. Please don't confuse the two.

        • (Score: 2) by tibman on Saturday November 08 2014, @04:52AM

          by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 08 2014, @04:52AM (#113980)

          I have to disagree with the boundaries of knowledge bit. Science is not free. Money does drive science. I love the idea of pure research. There doesn't have to be a recognizable product from the science. But science does cost money and because of that it is often used like an investment. Put 500k dollars in and you get a patent that you can leverage for 1.5 million in licensing fees. Sad but very common.

          You are right though that patents are not required for science. I apologize if that i was making it sound like it was. I was merely saying that companies who "invest" in science are less likely to do so if they cannot monetize the results (with a monopoly).

          --
          SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @10:49AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @10:49AM (#114008)

            A world can have science if it doesn't know the concept of money.
            On the other hand, if it knows the concept of money, it will engage / perform differently in science.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday November 08 2014, @11:30PM

        by edIII (791) on Saturday November 08 2014, @11:30PM (#114152)

        If that pattern can be easily copied then we are greatly reducing the incentive for people to map genes to diseases and so on. Maybe that is okay, i don't know. But it should at least be recognized.

        It is so recognized.

        However, since we are literally talking about life here and creating social contracts whereby small powerful groups of people have literal control over expressions of life, I would say fuck that vehemently.

        It's the basis for my objection to GMO, as well as any attempts from the medical community to own these expressions. To own life, to be able to control it and tell others that there attempts to work with life having that patterns is wrong, is so contemptible to me, so abhorrent, that it's beyond any reasonable argument for it to exist.

        We are not a well race, we are not mature, and we suffer greatly from childish behaviors. That can come from Goldman Sachs and Monsanto just as equally as it can from ISIS.

        In short, I don't believe we are mature enough as a race to grant ourselves the benefits of such mental abstractions and not abuse the crap out of ourselves doing it. It really doesn't require my belief either, as empirical reasoning (facts) show just how greatly Monsanto does abuse us (lawsuits against farmers and terrorizing of organic communities) and takes such serious liberties (improper science). We don't need those douchecanoes in the FDA, and we don't need them influencing foreign aid to countries like Ecuador, as I don't agree as a citizen to hold these funds hostage unless it benefits a US corporation. I find the whole methods, science, and most importantly, intent to be highly questionable in these groups of people I apparently agreed to grant these abominable legal entitlements.

        We shouldn't live in a world where Monsanto can claim damages because life has expressed itself in a way not conducive to their own selfish business interests, and it's not a false dichotomy in which we would be bereft of their contributions if we didn't.

        Let's agree that life just can't be owned, and if the science is that valuable, let's pay for it at national and global levels and agree that the results belong to the people of the world.

        It's one thing to own the abstraction that is Mickey Mouse, it's entirely another to create Mickey Mouse and then say you own "it". Whether that "it" is an animal, vegetable, sentient, or vegetable, is meaningless to me. It's life.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 07 2014, @08:47PM

      by sjames (2882) on Friday November 07 2014, @08:47PM (#113932) Journal

      At the same time, claiming proprietary ownership of a gene was pretty extreme as well. I always wanted to see a lawsuit about that where someone with the harmful form of the gene sues the 'owner' for damages.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @11:53AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @11:53AM (#114019)

        I always wanted to see a lawsuit about that where someone with the harmful form of the gene sues the 'owner' for damages.

        Hehe, this is pure genius!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @09:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 08 2014, @09:54AM (#114003)

      Life-saving technologies shouldn't be patentable in any manner, ever. Maybe it would discourage some people from pursuing medical technology; that's cool. Greedy people typically aren't interested in the long-tailed field of medicine anyhow. A properly funded socially supported educational-science grant system will provide us with the advancements needed. The amount of money spent on medical marketing is as absurd as it is depressing.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by urza9814 on Friday November 07 2014, @08:17PM

    by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 07 2014, @08:17PM (#113927) Journal

    This stuff is ridiculous. I suppose the people supporting these patents also think Clyde Tombaugh should get royalties every time an astronomer points a telescope towards Pluto??