3 ms·

The reason you're confused is because these articles are oversimplified and these patents aren't literally gene patents or patents of the genetic sequences them

The reason you're confused is because these articles are oversimplified and these patents aren't literally gene patents or patents of the genetic sequences themselves. I believe the so-called "gene patents" are "composition of matter" patents just like the original aspirin patent. I expanded on this more in a top level comment, but nobody (including this bill and the original gene patents) is calling for simply patenting entities that exist in nature. It's uncontroversial that this cannot be done.

mcv 7y ago
I'm not so sure. If a company discovers a rare flower that produces a compound that has useful properties for something, I bet that company wants to monopolise the use of that particular flower. If this law allows that, they will. If this law doesn't allow that yet, the next one might.
- GuB-42 7y ago
  The patent wouldn't be for the flower, but for the use of that flower for producing that particular compound. Or they can patent useful derivatives of that compound. The idea is to find man-made process involving something unpatentable and patent that process. The pharmaceutical industry is doing it regularly. And I would say it is the patent system working as intended. Others can still do research on that flower and you get rewarded for your discovery.
astazangasta 7y ago
You are wrong. They are literally gene patents. For years Myriad had a patent on BRCA1. They enforced it against anyone else who wanted to test for mutations in the gene. Over a fifth of the human genome had similar patents. There is no "composition" argument to be made, it is just a natural entity. Aspirin is a drug you make. This is like patenting the idea of apples. It is pure greed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
- travisp 7y ago
  Can you provide sources that suggest I'm wrong? Obviously there are difference of opinion on this (the supreme court decided these were not composition of matter patents), but I think it would be helpful for people reading to at least understand both sides. These two articles discuss some of the thoughts about why the BRCA patents were considered valid by a number of legal experts: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-human-blueprint-have-owners/a-century-old-form-of-patent https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-hum... > But Myriad’s patents don’t cover genes in their naturally occurring, unisolated form, just as the aspirin patent did not cover chewable bark. Rather, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents claim the genes as isolated, purified and used in a scientific or medical context. > Thus, Myriad’s patents cover the same “composition of matter” that these patents have always covered, and which built the modern pharmaceutical industry in the early 20th century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ It's at least not as simple as saying that these patents are just patenting the genetic sequence and anyone who even looks at them is violating patent law and that somehow others own the genes in our body. You said: > They enforced it against anyone else who wanted to test for mutations in the gene. Anyone could be tested for mutations in the gene (in fact, 23andMe tested for those specific SNPs and you could see it in your raw data). What Myriad patented and enforced was using this in a specific medical context, as I understand it specifically a medical diagnostic test. Here is the BRCA1 patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US5747282 https://www.google.com/patents/US5747282 This is the abstract: > The present invention relates generally to the field of human genetics. Specifically, the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast and ovarian cancer predisposing gene (BRCA1), some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer, in particular breast and ovarian cancer. More specifically, the invention relates to germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene and their use in the diagnosis of predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. The present invention further relates to somatic mutations in the BRCA1 gene in human breast and ovarian cancer and their use in the diagnosis and prognosis of human breast and ovarian cancer. Additionally, the invention relates to somatic mutations in the BRCA1 gene in other human cancers and their use in the diagnosis and prognosis of human cancers. The invention also relates to the therapy of human cancers which have a mutation in the BRCA1 gene, including gene therapy, protein replacement therapy and protein mimetics. The invention further relates to the screening of drugs for cancer therapy. Finally, the invention relates to the screening of the BRCA1 gene for mutations, which are useful for diagnosing the predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Here is the insulin patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1469994 https://patents.google.com/patent/US1469994 And here is the adrenaline patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US730176 https://patents.google.com/patent/US730176 These are both things naturally occurring in the body.

mcv 7y ago

I'm not so sure. If a company discovers a rare flower that produces a compound that has useful properties for something, I bet that company wants to monopolise the use of that particular flower. If this law allows that, they will. If this law doesn't allow that yet, the next one might.

GuB-42 7y ago
The patent wouldn't be for the flower, but for the use of that flower for producing that particular compound. Or they can patent useful derivatives of that compound. The idea is to find man-made process involving something unpatentable and patent that process. The pharmaceutical industry is doing it regularly. And I would say it is the patent system working as intended. Others can still do research on that flower and you get rewarded for your discovery.

astazangasta 7y ago

You are wrong. They are literally gene patents. For years Myriad had a patent on BRCA1. They enforced it against anyone else who wanted to test for mutations in the gene. Over a fifth of the human genome had similar patents. There is no "composition" argument to be made, it is just a natural entity. Aspirin is a drug you make. This is like patenting the idea of apples. It is pure greed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

travisp 7y ago
Can you provide sources that suggest I'm wrong? Obviously there are difference of opinion on this (the supreme court decided these were not composition of matter patents), but I think it would be helpful for people reading to at least understand both sides. These two articles discuss some of the thoughts about why the BRCA patents were considered valid by a number of legal experts: https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-human-blueprint-have-owners/a-century-old-form-of-patent https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/06/06/can-the-hum... > But Myriad’s patents don’t cover genes in their naturally occurring, unisolated form, just as the aspirin patent did not cover chewable bark. Rather, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents claim the genes as isolated, purified and used in a scientific or medical context. > Thus, Myriad’s patents cover the same “composition of matter” that these patents have always covered, and which built the modern pharmaceutical industry in the early 20th century. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3979127/ It's at least not as simple as saying that these patents are just patenting the genetic sequence and anyone who even looks at them is violating patent law and that somehow others own the genes in our body. You said: > They enforced it against anyone else who wanted to test for mutations in the gene. Anyone could be tested for mutations in the gene (in fact, 23andMe tested for those specific SNPs and you could see it in your raw data). What Myriad patented and enforced was using this in a specific medical context, as I understand it specifically a medical diagnostic test. Here is the BRCA1 patent: https://www.google.com/patents/US5747282 https://www.google.com/patents/US5747282 This is the abstract: > The present invention relates generally to the field of human genetics. Specifically, the present invention relates to methods and materials used to isolate and detect a human breast and ovarian cancer predisposing gene (BRCA1), some mutant alleles of which cause susceptibility to cancer, in particular breast and ovarian cancer. More specifically, the invention relates to germline mutations in the BRCA1 gene and their use in the diagnosis of predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. The present invention further relates to somatic mutations in the BRCA1 gene in human breast and ovarian cancer and their use in the diagnosis and prognosis of human breast and ovarian cancer. Additionally, the invention relates to somatic mutations in the BRCA1 gene in other human cancers and their use in the diagnosis and prognosis of human cancers. The invention also relates to the therapy of human cancers which have a mutation in the BRCA1 gene, including gene therapy, protein replacement therapy and protein mimetics. The invention further relates to the screening of drugs for cancer therapy. Finally, the invention relates to the screening of the BRCA1 gene for mutations, which are useful for diagnosing the predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. Here is the insulin patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1469994 https://patents.google.com/patent/US1469994 And here is the adrenaline patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US730176 https://patents.google.com/patent/US730176 These are both things naturally occurring in the body.