4 ms·
I'm afraid of stating the obvious here, but patents on a piece of information like this is really creepy. Especially given that it is a matter of public safety.
by marvin 18y ago
I'm afraid of stating the obvious here, but patents on a piece of information like this is really creepy. Especially given that it is a matter of public safety. If treatments become available and genome sequencing becomes really cheap, how are these patents going to be enforced? No one is going to tell you what mutations are scary unless you pay royalties?
- rms 18y agoYeah, patents in this area are pretty bad. A gene, something that exists in nature, should not be able to be patented. It's ridiculous. Biotech and medical science have been greatly held back by the heavy enforcement of patents in this area -- imagine what would have happened to software if software patents are enforced. And correct, no one is going to tell you scary mutations unless you pay royalties, because the only people that aren't afraid to deal with scary mutations are medical doctors, and they certainly pay the royalties as needed. Probably the single most useful and popular (if you're a woman) of the medically actionable genetic tests is the BRCA1/2 test. Myriad Genetics owns the patent and the test costs several thousand dollars in the US. The patent was overturned in Europe, I believe, so it is probably cheaper there.
- antiismist 18y agoThe idea is that a gene in isolation does not exist in nature. You get the patent on the gene isolated from the rest of the DNA. Not saying it is "right"... In other words, you get a patent on using some extract of DNA for a useful purpose like determining cancer susceptibility.