3 ms·

This decision affirms a previous decision that synthetic modifications to DNA sequences are patented - regardless of whether they have introns. You see, the rul

This decision affirms a previous decision that synthetic modifications to DNA sequences are patented - regardless of whether they have introns. You see, the ruling suggests that the act of creating a new synthetic, modified DNA molecule (in this case without introns) is patent-able. (Not a comment on your opinion about patents, only the part about patentability relying on introns.)

dnautics 13y ago
can you link to this previous decision?
- daughart 13y ago
  "In Chakrabarty, scientists added four plasmids to a bacte- rium, which enabled it to break down various components of crude oil. 447 U. S., at 305, and n. 1. The Court held that the modified bacterium was patentable." Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980), If I am reading this correctly. EDIT: Sorry I re-read my original comment - I meant "synthetic modifications", not necessarily only to DNA, but to natural products in general.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I think I was confused because you meant "patentable", not "patented". But is not isolation by PCR a synthetic modification? If I made a useful machine out of a single piece of wood using a six-axis subtractive tooling device, would you argue that the machine is unpatentable because "it was already there"? PCR actually goes even further - conceptually it's subtractive procedure but it actually does so by creating copies within the specific boundaries. These boundaries don't exist in nature, the act of specifying the boundaries is creative, and without the prior research, non-obvious.
    - daughart 13y ago
      Yes, sorry I meant patentable. This ruling specifically says that merely identifying the location of a gene and isolating it is not a patentable transformation. PCR is not transformative because the dsDNA molecule exists in nature. I think in this context isolation is similar in nature to discovery, which is not a patentable activity.
      - dnautics 13y ago
        well, no, the supreme court has decided that effectively breaking four covalent bonds is not transformative (your words). I think it's a wrong decision. Even so, if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of creation, not transformation. That dsDNA molecule doesn't exist in nature. For example, there is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound, that's really quite poor. They have recently discovered that only the core of the molecule is necessary for antibiosis, and removal of the rest of the molecule improves its pharmacological properties. It's a distinct molecule, created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost certainly, somewhere in nature, there has a thiostrepton molecule that by accident happened to have been cleaved at exactly the right places to render the molecule. does that change your opinion? I am not trying to defend the practice - I abhor patents - but a lot of people are letting their emotional reaction to "patenting genes" get in the way of a dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on here.
        daughart 13y ago
        Your perspective is confusing. You say that a modified form of thiostrepton should not be patentable, even though the patent protects the molecule as well as the process of chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires significant innovation, and in this case the natural molecule is also significantly modified. On the other hand, when you PCR something you are generating a dsDNA molecule that is identical to the original molecule. I understand PCR quite well, and doing PCR is not innovative or transformative. You are creating something, sure, but it's an exact copy of something that exists in nature. The Supreme Court clearly states here that merely finding out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not patentable. The process of PCR itself is an invention, and is patented (Cetus, Mullis). It seems preposterous to say that you are strongly against patents, and then say you think the patent should be much more restrictive. I have no emotional reaction to patenting genes. I think patenting a significant modification of a naturally occurring substance is completely reasonable as it protects the investments involved in inventing and applying the modifications, while at the same time allowing others to use and understand the development. Without patents biotech would become full of trade secrets, holding back progress in the field.

dnautics 13y ago

can you link to this previous decision?

daughart 13y ago
"In Chakrabarty, scientists added four plasmids to a bacte- rium, which enabled it to break down various components of crude oil. 447 U. S., at 305, and n. 1. The Court held that the modified bacterium was patentable." Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U. S. 303, 309 (1980), If I am reading this correctly. EDIT: Sorry I re-read my original comment - I meant "synthetic modifications", not necessarily only to DNA, but to natural products in general.
- dnautics 13y ago
  I think I was confused because you meant "patentable", not "patented". But is not isolation by PCR a synthetic modification? If I made a useful machine out of a single piece of wood using a six-axis subtractive tooling device, would you argue that the machine is unpatentable because "it was already there"? PCR actually goes even further - conceptually it's subtractive procedure but it actually does so by creating copies within the specific boundaries. These boundaries don't exist in nature, the act of specifying the boundaries is creative, and without the prior research, non-obvious.
  - daughart 13y ago
    Yes, sorry I meant patentable. This ruling specifically says that merely identifying the location of a gene and isolating it is not a patentable transformation. PCR is not transformative because the dsDNA molecule exists in nature. I think in this context isolation is similar in nature to discovery, which is not a patentable activity.
    - dnautics 13y ago
      well, no, the supreme court has decided that effectively breaking four covalent bonds is not transformative (your words). I think it's a wrong decision. Even so, if you actually understand it, the act of PCR is an act of creation, not transformation. That dsDNA molecule doesn't exist in nature. For example, there is a molecule thiostrepton which is an antibiotic compound, that's really quite poor. They have recently discovered that only the core of the molecule is necessary for antibiosis, and removal of the rest of the molecule improves its pharmacological properties. It's a distinct molecule, created by the scission of 3 covalent bonds. Should it be unpatentable? Almost certainly, somewhere in nature, there has a thiostrepton molecule that by accident happened to have been cleaved at exactly the right places to render the molecule. does that change your opinion? I am not trying to defend the practice - I abhor patents - but a lot of people are letting their emotional reaction to "patenting genes" get in the way of a dispassionate and informed analysis of what actually is going on here.
      - daughart 13y ago
        Your perspective is confusing. You say that a modified form of thiostrepton should not be patentable, even though the patent protects the molecule as well as the process of chemical synthesis or purification, which often requires significant innovation, and in this case the natural molecule is also significantly modified. On the other hand, when you PCR something you are generating a dsDNA molecule that is identical to the original molecule. I understand PCR quite well, and doing PCR is not innovative or transformative. You are creating something, sure, but it's an exact copy of something that exists in nature. The Supreme Court clearly states here that merely finding out where a genetic sequence is and isolating it is not patentable. The process of PCR itself is an invention, and is patented (Cetus, Mullis). It seems preposterous to say that you are strongly against patents, and then say you think the patent should be much more restrictive. I have no emotional reaction to patenting genes. I think patenting a significant modification of a naturally occurring substance is completely reasonable as it protects the investments involved in inventing and applying the modifications, while at the same time allowing others to use and understand the development. Without patents biotech would become full of trade secrets, holding back progress in the field.