supreme court rules genes may not be patented

[Hasbinbad]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-398_8njq.pdf

[Ahldagor]

this regarding human genes?

[Barkingturtle]

Yes. It's really too important to discuss here.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes. It's really too important to discuss here.

that's true...would we own our organs grown from our stem cells???

[r00t]

govt cloned humans shortly after dolly if you dont understand that youre helpless

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

govt cloned humans shortly after dolly if you dont understand that youre helpless

well, yeah, metal gear solid 2 proved that.

[Lyra]

I recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Immortal-L.../dp/1594134324

Her name was Henrietta Lacks, but scientists know her as HeLa. She was a poor Southern tobacco farmer whose cancer cells - taken without her knowledge - became one of the most important tools in medicine. The first 'immortal' human tissue grown in culture, HeLa cells were vital for developing the polio vaccine; uncovered secrets of cancer, viruses, and the effects of the atom bomb; helped lead to important advances like in vitro fertilization, cloning, and gene mapping; and, have been bought and sold by the billions. Yet Henrietta herself remains virtually unknown, buried in an unmarked grave. Now Rebecca Skloot takes us on an extraordinary journey in search of Henrietta's story, from the 'coloured' ward of Johns Hopkins Hospital in the 1950s to East Baltimore today, where her children and grandchildren live, and struggle with the legacy of her cells. Full of warmth and questing intelligence, astonishing in scope and impossible to put down, "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" captures the beauty and drama of scientific discovery, as well as its human consequences.

[Nikon]

'Natural' genes cannot be patented but synthetics can. That opens a door for industry to take a gene, duplicate it, modify it slightly, and patent it. I wonder, if you use a patented synthetic gene to make your kid taller, would you have to pay the patent owner when they decide to procreate and pass on that gene, or possibly tell you that you can't procreate because you haven't bought a license to 'distribute' the gene? Oh, the possibilities for making money...

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Nikon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

'Natural' genes cannot be patented but synthetics can. That opens a door for industry to take a gene, duplicate it, modify it slightly, and patent it. I wonder, if you use a patented synthetic gene to make your kid taller, would you have to pay the patent owner when they decide to procreate and pass on that gene, or possibly tell you that you can't procreate because you haven't bought a license to 'distribute' the gene? Oh, the possibilities for making money...

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

the science is pretty cool, but it seems like it's motivated by that desire for the overman. why else would we isolate genes to "fix" certain things in people or enable them to modify their possible children with a set potentiality?

[Nikon]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

This will be the next part of the debate for more specific guidelines. Taking a gene, splicing out components, and inserting new components that do not occur naturally will constitute a synthetic gene (a synthetic allele of the natural gene). I have a close colleague that works in the gene therapy research field here in Colorado and this was his explanation. Technically, even though it is naturally occurring to start, once modified, it is an entirely new product and not a naturally occurring gene or allele, which then is patentable. While the laws of nature dictate how the nucleotide sequence works and reacts just like other genes, the newly created gene is not naturally occurring. This ruling sets the precedent that the genes (sequences) humans are born with cannot be patented, but lab-modified (custom) versions of the nucleotide sequences can be. The idea of patents in the US is to be able to protect something you 'create'. A modified gene, while resembling a naturally occurring gene with even slight variations, is in essence a new gene if it is not found in the human body. This is where it will get tricky when lab genes are passed onto offspring and somebody else owns the rights to that gene.

My understanding is that Myriad filed a patent claim for isolating a specific gene and recreating it in the lab then claiming it as their own. It was in essence the isolated gene itself that they were patenting as the gene does not occur naturally by itself, but rather as part of a whole. I'm not a biology expert and lean more towards lab chemistry and physics, but what was explained to me falls into line with my knowledge of American patent history and my bio-chem education.