3 ms·
> Would the doctor have known what gene sequences to look for if Myriad hadn't done the R&D and published the results? That question implies a very confused ve
by carbocation 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?
That question implies a very confused version of history. BRCA1/2 were discovered by NIH-funded researchers at universities. Some of these co-discoverers went on to found Myriad. Other co-discoverers, such as Mary-Claire King, did not.
Also, after the first large-scale GWAS studies in the late 2000s, a high school student with enough funding could have discovered the BRCA1/2 - breast cancer association.
- twoodfin 14y agoLots of patented technology starts out at universities via (at least some) public funding. Typically, the university demands a cut of the patent royalties. It's no one's fault but the NIH if their grants don't come with similar strings attached.
- carbocation 14y ago> It's no one's fault but the NIH if their grants don't come with similar strings attached. That's also an ahistorical comment. Prior to Bayh-Dole, federal research funding obligated discoveries to be assigned to the government. Post Bayh-Dole, universities get to pursue patents even if the discovery was publicly funded. So you actually cannot blame the NIH; you could blame Congress.
- twoodfin 14y agoFair point. So you think Bayh-Dole is worth repealing or modifying? A quick read through the Wikipedia article certainly makes it sound like a reasonable policy (for example, licensing is mandatory) and demonstrably preferable to the previous regime.
- carbocation 14y agoBayh-Dole applies to so many things beyond my realm of knowledge that I don't know that I currently have a thoughtful idea of whether or how I would amend it, if given the chance. I was simply pointing out that one can't blame the NIH for the lack of stipulations on their grant money.