SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Corporate Control of Human Genes Before Supreme Court
Corporation's claim of ownership on human gene threatens "untold cost" to research, medical treatment and patients
Apr 15, 2013
The Supreme Court will take up the question on Monday as to whether human genes can be patented allowing corporations to extend their grasp and claim private property rights over the essential building block of human life.
The defendant in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. is claiming to "own" two genes related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2. Myriad Genetics argues that the genes become their "invention" once they are "isolated," or removed from the cell and therefore they have the right to stop anyone from using these genes, whether for clinical or research purposes.
"The Patent Office's policy of granting companies complete control over portions of our bodies is both morally offensive and a clear violation of the law," said the suit's co-counsel Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT). "Genes are the foundation of life, they are created by nature, not by man, and that is why we were here today at the Supreme Court to make sure they are not controlled by corporations through the patent system."
"Myriad did not invent the human genes at issue in this case, and they should not be allowed to patent them. The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, not stifle scientific research and the free exchange of ideas, which is what these patents do," added ACLU attorney, Chris Hansen, in a statement.
The impact of this argument has "broad implications for scientific research," writes SCOTUSblog, but also for the millions of patients who are dependent on accurate and efficient testing.
"I think that this patent, which has jacked up the prices and made testing more difficult in many circumstances, may be preventing hundreds and maybe thousands and thousands of people from learning that they are at high risk for these terrible disease," said Cancer Genetic Counselor, Ellen Matloff.
In 2009, an initial suit was filed in a district court by an alliance of medical associations, physicians, researchers, women's health groups along with six patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk of a hereditary version of breast or ovarian cancer. The case won on the argument that the isolated genes are not "materially different from genes before extraction," and that by granting a patent on them would enable "the patenting of nature itself, at untold cost to scientific research, medical treatment and patients."
However, after being challenged in a federal appeals court, the case was lost after a 2-1 split decision.
"The implications of the argument are breathtaking," writes the ACLU's Sandra Park. "What would prevent patents on a kidney removed from the body, or a leaf snapped from a tree?" She adds:
When scientists identify something in nature, like an element or a gene, they deserve praise. But what they find belongs to the storehouse of knowledge, for all to use as the basis for true inventions, such as lithium batteries, genetic tests, or drugs. We should not be forced to rely on a single entity to develop all possible applications of that product of nature.
Following oral arguments on Monday, a court decision is expected by the end of June.
_____________________
The ACLU posted this video to exemplify the "untold costs" of these patent protections.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
The Supreme Court will take up the question on Monday as to whether human genes can be patented allowing corporations to extend their grasp and claim private property rights over the essential building block of human life.
The defendant in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. is claiming to "own" two genes related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2. Myriad Genetics argues that the genes become their "invention" once they are "isolated," or removed from the cell and therefore they have the right to stop anyone from using these genes, whether for clinical or research purposes.
"The Patent Office's policy of granting companies complete control over portions of our bodies is both morally offensive and a clear violation of the law," said the suit's co-counsel Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT). "Genes are the foundation of life, they are created by nature, not by man, and that is why we were here today at the Supreme Court to make sure they are not controlled by corporations through the patent system."
"Myriad did not invent the human genes at issue in this case, and they should not be allowed to patent them. The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, not stifle scientific research and the free exchange of ideas, which is what these patents do," added ACLU attorney, Chris Hansen, in a statement.
The impact of this argument has "broad implications for scientific research," writes SCOTUSblog, but also for the millions of patients who are dependent on accurate and efficient testing.
"I think that this patent, which has jacked up the prices and made testing more difficult in many circumstances, may be preventing hundreds and maybe thousands and thousands of people from learning that they are at high risk for these terrible disease," said Cancer Genetic Counselor, Ellen Matloff.
In 2009, an initial suit was filed in a district court by an alliance of medical associations, physicians, researchers, women's health groups along with six patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk of a hereditary version of breast or ovarian cancer. The case won on the argument that the isolated genes are not "materially different from genes before extraction," and that by granting a patent on them would enable "the patenting of nature itself, at untold cost to scientific research, medical treatment and patients."
However, after being challenged in a federal appeals court, the case was lost after a 2-1 split decision.
"The implications of the argument are breathtaking," writes the ACLU's Sandra Park. "What would prevent patents on a kidney removed from the body, or a leaf snapped from a tree?" She adds:
When scientists identify something in nature, like an element or a gene, they deserve praise. But what they find belongs to the storehouse of knowledge, for all to use as the basis for true inventions, such as lithium batteries, genetic tests, or drugs. We should not be forced to rely on a single entity to develop all possible applications of that product of nature.
Following oral arguments on Monday, a court decision is expected by the end of June.
_____________________
The ACLU posted this video to exemplify the "untold costs" of these patent protections.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
The Supreme Court will take up the question on Monday as to whether human genes can be patented allowing corporations to extend their grasp and claim private property rights over the essential building block of human life.
The defendant in the case Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. is claiming to "own" two genes related to hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA 1 and BRCA 2. Myriad Genetics argues that the genes become their "invention" once they are "isolated," or removed from the cell and therefore they have the right to stop anyone from using these genes, whether for clinical or research purposes.
"The Patent Office's policy of granting companies complete control over portions of our bodies is both morally offensive and a clear violation of the law," said the suit's co-counsel Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT). "Genes are the foundation of life, they are created by nature, not by man, and that is why we were here today at the Supreme Court to make sure they are not controlled by corporations through the patent system."
"Myriad did not invent the human genes at issue in this case, and they should not be allowed to patent them. The patent system was designed to encourage innovation, not stifle scientific research and the free exchange of ideas, which is what these patents do," added ACLU attorney, Chris Hansen, in a statement.
The impact of this argument has "broad implications for scientific research," writes SCOTUSblog, but also for the millions of patients who are dependent on accurate and efficient testing.
"I think that this patent, which has jacked up the prices and made testing more difficult in many circumstances, may be preventing hundreds and maybe thousands and thousands of people from learning that they are at high risk for these terrible disease," said Cancer Genetic Counselor, Ellen Matloff.
In 2009, an initial suit was filed in a district court by an alliance of medical associations, physicians, researchers, women's health groups along with six patients who have been diagnosed with or are at risk of a hereditary version of breast or ovarian cancer. The case won on the argument that the isolated genes are not "materially different from genes before extraction," and that by granting a patent on them would enable "the patenting of nature itself, at untold cost to scientific research, medical treatment and patients."
However, after being challenged in a federal appeals court, the case was lost after a 2-1 split decision.
"The implications of the argument are breathtaking," writes the ACLU's Sandra Park. "What would prevent patents on a kidney removed from the body, or a leaf snapped from a tree?" She adds:
When scientists identify something in nature, like an element or a gene, they deserve praise. But what they find belongs to the storehouse of knowledge, for all to use as the basis for true inventions, such as lithium batteries, genetic tests, or drugs. We should not be forced to rely on a single entity to develop all possible applications of that product of nature.
Following oral arguments on Monday, a court decision is expected by the end of June.
_____________________
The ACLU posted this video to exemplify the "untold costs" of these patent protections.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.