3 ms·

I haven't read the actual study - just the presentation in this link. However, I would be REALLY hesitant to conclude anything from this other than Celera chos

by brfox 16y ago

I haven't read the actual study - just the presentation in this link. However, I would be REALLY hesitant to conclude anything from this other than Celera chose uninteresting things to make patent applications on. The "outcome" for innovation in this study was whether or not a gene test exists, and that is not what Celera was trying to get IP on. They were trying to find drugs or drug targets - and that is a difficult process. The fraction of good drug targets in the human genome compared to the total number of genes is very, very small.

sprout 16y ago
The fraction of good drug targets in the human genome compared to the total number of genes is probably astronomical, but to think that a single gene is going to give you much information is laughable. The number of proteins involved in any given disorder or disease is far too large. Which, incidentally, is why you shouldn't be able to patent testing for single genes, since that is the most rudimentary example of what genetic testing has to offer.