9 ms·

Supreme Court to decide if human genes can be patented

32 points by chewymouse 14y ago

deletes 14y ago
>>Runi Limary, a 36-year-old breast cancer survivor, told USA TODAY that one of the patented genes showed up in her body when she was 28. Suspecting ovarian cancer, she debated having her ovaries removed, but couldn’t get a second opinion because Myriad held a patent on the mutated gene that she developed.<< What ! ?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Myriad has a patent on a medical test that uses the presence of particular mutations to screen for cancer.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    Myriad has a patent on the BRCA genes in isolation. It does not have a patent on just a test. If it did, then nobody would care, because we could perform alternative tests to acquire the same information in a different, non-infringing way.
kunai 14y ago
Ridiculous. Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question. I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good. Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get. A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829
- rayiner 14y ago
  To play devil's advocate: what incentive does a private company have to do all the lab work necessary to identify a particular gene sequence as being predictive of cancer and make it publicly known? Without patents, Myriad would've just kept the gene sequence in question secret instead of publishing it. Would someone have rediscovered the proper sequence before Myriad's patent term would've expired? What would be their incentive to share it?
  - loudin 14y ago
    This is why medical and scientific research should not have profit motives attached to them. It creates perverted incentives like the situation you describe above.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      Nobody "attaches" the profit motive--it is inherent. Nobody spends millions of dollars on research and dedicates years of their lives to it for free. They either do it because the government is bankrolling the endeavor (like much medical research), or because their is a potential for profit. I'm fully willing to entertain the idea that the government should be funding all this research that would otherwise be done by private industry, but someone has to pay for the R&D.
    - penny500 14y ago
      What would incentivize people to actually go into research if that were the case? Our best would all be bankers, lawyers, and mobile app developers.
      - VLM 14y ago
        Lawyers are a bad example as they don't run on profit based accounting, typically. More of a fee for service arrangement. There do exist some lawyers with for-profit side businesses, or solely work for a for-profit business, but they're probably outnumbered by law firms + sole proprietor service provider + employed by non-profits + employed by .gov There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr. The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead. We live in a central govt controlled economy. If you have control of the government, which we probably don't, then you can also select the priorities. It also has the assumption that profit is the only reason why people work. Simple salary arrangements work pretty well for most people, as does contract work. Some other ways people make money without profit include prizes (Nobel, etc) and being cultural heros (pro sports athletes, unfortunately definitely not biomedical research scientists) Finally some people just love the subject area and will voluntarily starve their family, look at any STEM other than CS/IT/high level applied medical (aka hospital dr cardiologist etc). I would not bet on it, or demand that only people taking a vow of poverty are "real" scientists or whatever. But there always will be some nuts willing to eat Ramen every night for the rest of their lives.
loudin 14y ago
Well, this is frightening. Common sense dictates that human genes should not be patented, but with the current climate in this country, I'm not sure if common sense will prevail.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
carbocation 14y ago
This is the money quote that summarizes the view of ~everyone in clinical care: “You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.
- rayiner 14y ago
  Would the doctor have known what gene sequences to look for if Myriad hadn't done the R&D and published the results?
  - loceng 14y ago
    Public money would have eventually funded this as it's so important to know.
    - carbocation 14y ago
      From memory, BRCA1 was discovered at UC Berkeley; BRCA2 was discovered at the University of Utah. Public money did fund this research.
      - angersock 14y ago
        But, man, don't you get it--without patents and the free market we can't have research, God. Why do you hate America?
        rayiner 14y ago
        I don't think anybody is arguing you can't have research without patents. People are saying that you can't have research without tons of cash. Whether that cash is a license from the government to get money from users of an invention, or a straight up check is a public policy issue. If the government funds some research, everyone pays for it whether or not they use it. If the government grants some legal protection that makes it easier to monetize that research from users, then only users pay for it. Which of those is more appropriate is context-specific.
magicalist 14y ago
ars technica has considerably better coverage here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-court-end-human-gene-patents-after-three-decades/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-...
belorn 14y ago
>The group claims that the patents violate the First Amendment by restricting the free exchange of ideas on human body parts. It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation. In a comment about patents two days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438), I linked to a talk which also brought up the fist Amendment issue with patents, and how it connect to software patents. You can also just read it (and thus jump directly to the related parts) in this transcript: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/BilskiAndBeyondTranscript http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/Bils...
jforman 14y ago
What's at issue is not the "right to patent human genes" but the right to patent in vitro copies of human genes. The claim from one of the primary patents at issue: "An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2" Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself. Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients. Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.
- refurb 14y ago
  I'm curious, how do such patents hinder basic research? Patents forbid commercial exploitation of a discovery; when I was doing basic research we routinely used materials that were patent protected. If remember correctly, it is codified into law that you can use patented materials or processes in basic research.
  - chii 14y ago
    patenting something that (i assume) is a basic component of other "products" is what's being objected to. Sure, you can _use_ the patented product/idea/method in your research, but the end result is that you cannot commercialize the research if it becomes patent encumbered (or not profitable to do so), and thus the eresearch never get funded in the first place!
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
I await the day the headline will be: "Supreme Court to decide if anything can be patented at all"
kislayverma 14y ago
As ridiculous as this patent attempt is by itself, I find it even more amusing/alarming that an American court is seen as the appropriate body to sit in judgement of the human genome.

32 points by chewymouse 14y ago

>>Runi Limary, a 36-year-old breast cancer survivor, told USA TODAY that one of the patented genes showed up in her body when she was 28. Suspecting ovarian cancer, she debated having her ovaries removed, but couldn’t get a second opinion because Myriad held a patent on the mutated gene that she developed.<< What ! ?

rayiner 14y ago
Myriad has a patent on a medical test that uses the presence of particular mutations to screen for cancer.
- carbocation 14y ago
  Myriad has a patent on the BRCA genes in isolation. It does not have a patent on just a test. If it did, then nobody would care, because we could perform alternative tests to acquire the same information in a different, non-infringing way.

kunai 14y ago

Ridiculous. Oftentimes, on HN, discussion entails personal anecdote, personal opinion, and an onslaught of agreement and disagreement, usually completely unrelated to the article in question. I think, however, that it is unanimous that the patent thing is completely spiraling out of control. Not only are patent trolls completely stifling innovation, but patents, as indicated here, are proving to be more harmful than good. Intellectual property is not property. What you think is not something you own. Nobody owns ideas; trying to patent them is as absurd as you can get. A quote from the late Aaron Swartz sums it up brilliantly. http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829 http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/000829

rayiner 14y ago
To play devil's advocate: what incentive does a private company have to do all the lab work necessary to identify a particular gene sequence as being predictive of cancer and make it publicly known? Without patents, Myriad would've just kept the gene sequence in question secret instead of publishing it. Would someone have rediscovered the proper sequence before Myriad's patent term would've expired? What would be their incentive to share it?
- loudin 14y ago
  This is why medical and scientific research should not have profit motives attached to them. It creates perverted incentives like the situation you describe above.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Nobody "attaches" the profit motive--it is inherent. Nobody spends millions of dollars on research and dedicates years of their lives to it for free. They either do it because the government is bankrolling the endeavor (like much medical research), or because their is a potential for profit. I'm fully willing to entertain the idea that the government should be funding all this research that would otherwise be done by private industry, but someone has to pay for the R&D.
  - penny500 14y ago
    What would incentivize people to actually go into research if that were the case? Our best would all be bankers, lawyers, and mobile app developers.
    - VLM 14y ago
      Lawyers are a bad example as they don't run on profit based accounting, typically. More of a fee for service arrangement. There do exist some lawyers with for-profit side businesses, or solely work for a for-profit business, but they're probably outnumbered by law firms + sole proprietor service provider + employed by non-profits + employed by .gov There is no obvious reason other than tradition and cultural goals that a lawyer has to be paid $200/hr instead of $20/hr, ditto no reason a postdoc biomedical researcher has to be paid $30K/yr instead of $300K/yr. The supply of STEM grads is too high leading to low pay and the supply of lawyers is too low leading to high pay, but if you can convince the kids to select different majors, go ahead. We live in a central govt controlled economy. If you have control of the government, which we probably don't, then you can also select the priorities. It also has the assumption that profit is the only reason why people work. Simple salary arrangements work pretty well for most people, as does contract work. Some other ways people make money without profit include prizes (Nobel, etc) and being cultural heros (pro sports athletes, unfortunately definitely not biomedical research scientists) Finally some people just love the subject area and will voluntarily starve their family, look at any STEM other than CS/IT/high level applied medical (aka hospital dr cardiologist etc). I would not bet on it, or demand that only people taking a vow of poverty are "real" scientists or whatever. But there always will be some nuts willing to eat Ramen every night for the rest of their lives.

loudin 14y ago

Well, this is frightening. Common sense dictates that human genes should not be patented, but with the current climate in this country, I'm not sure if common sense will prevail.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

carbocation 14y ago

This is the money quote that summarizes the view of ~everyone in clinical care: “You have to ask, how is it possible that my doctor cannot look at my DNA without being concerned about patent infringement?” Christopher Mason, assistant professor at Weill Medical College, told The Guardian.

rayiner 14y ago
Would the doctor have known what gene sequences to look for if Myriad hadn't done the R&D and published the results?
- loceng 14y ago
  Public money would have eventually funded this as it's so important to know.
  - carbocation 14y ago
    From memory, BRCA1 was discovered at UC Berkeley; BRCA2 was discovered at the University of Utah. Public money did fund this research.
    - angersock 14y ago
      But, man, don't you get it--without patents and the free market we can't have research, God. Why do you hate America?
      - rayiner 14y ago
        I don't think anybody is arguing you can't have research without patents. People are saying that you can't have research without tons of cash. Whether that cash is a license from the government to get money from users of an invention, or a straight up check is a public policy issue. If the government funds some research, everyone pays for it whether or not they use it. If the government grants some legal protection that makes it easier to monetize that research from users, then only users pay for it. Which of those is more appropriate is context-specific.

magicalist 14y ago

ars technica has considerably better coverage here: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-court-end-human-gene-patents-after-three-decades/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/will-the-supreme-...

belorn 14y ago

>The group claims that the patents violate the First Amendment by restricting the free exchange of ideas on human body parts. It will be interesting to see this argument being handled in the Supreme Court. If looking for a specific gene is patentable, it comes very well into the definition of patenting a purely mental operation. In a comment about patents two days ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5540438), I linked to a talk which also brought up the fist Amendment issue with patents, and how it connect to software patents. You can also just read it (and thus jump directly to the related parts) in this transcript: http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/BilskiAndBeyondTranscript http://moglen.law.columbia.edu/twiki/bin/view/LawNetSoc/Bils...

jforman 14y ago

What's at issue is not the "right to patent human genes" but the right to patent in vitro copies of human genes. The claim from one of the primary patents at issue: "An isolated DNA coding for a BRCA1 polypeptide, said polypeptide having the amino acid sequence set forth in SEQ ID NO:2" Now, in order to perform any medical analysis on your DNA, you need to make copies, so this is essentially the same as patenting the gene itself, but it does make the argument a little bit more subtle. Still a ridiculous thing to patent — I don't see any novelty in an vitro copy of something that occurs in nature — but not as obviously a product of nature itself. Also, the author says that the "genes in question, BRCA1 an BRCA2, often appear in cancer patients." In fact, every human being always has those genes, but they become mutated in often stereotyped ways in cancer patients. Back in my Ph.D. days the scientists I worked with were pretty much unanimous in thinking these patents should be overturned — they very strongly hinder basic scientific study and medical analysis. And they're not a patent on a method, or a type of analysis, or anything like that — just a patent on a straight-up in vitro copy (and not the method for copying!). I don't see any economic value in protecting that at all when a first-year grad student had the skills to do that from a human DNA template decades ago.

refurb 14y ago
I'm curious, how do such patents hinder basic research? Patents forbid commercial exploitation of a discovery; when I was doing basic research we routinely used materials that were patent protected. If remember correctly, it is codified into law that you can use patented materials or processes in basic research.
- chii 14y ago
  patenting something that (i assume) is a basic component of other "products" is what's being objected to. Sure, you can _use_ the patented product/idea/method in your research, but the end result is that you cannot commercialize the research if it becomes patent encumbered (or not profitable to do so), and thus the eresearch never get funded in the first place!

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

I await the day the headline will be: "Supreme Court to decide if anything can be patented at all"

kislayverma 14y ago

As ridiculous as this patent attempt is by itself, I find it even more amusing/alarming that an American court is seen as the appropriate body to sit in judgement of the human genome.