Victory for Patients: SCOTUS Rules Against Gene Patents
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a victory for "patient care and medical innovation," that will allow greater access to genetic testing and more affordable treatment for cancer patients, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.
The court decision invalidated patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of women's health groups and thousands of researchers, health professionals and patients.
The case concerned patents on human genes held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah based corporation, on human genes that are tied to the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer--an issue that received public attention in May when actress Angelina Jolie revealed she had a preventive double mastectomy. The news spawned debate over the procedure that is out of reach for most patients because of the extremely high costs related to Myriad's monopoly over the genes.
Myriad's patents had allowed them to set the terms and cost of testing the genes and "made it difficult for women to access alternate tests or get a comprehensive second opinion about their results," the ACLU explains.
ACLU continues:
The patents allowed a Utah company, Myriad Genetics, to control access to the genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, thereby giving them the right to limit others from doing research or diagnostic testing of the genes, which can be crucial for individuals making important medical decisions.
"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."
The decision is a major shift in patent law pertaining to human biology and declares that all the patents on human genes are invalid.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the court's decision, stated:
"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."
"The court rightfully found that patents cannot be awarded for something so fundamental to nature as DNA," said Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of PUBPAT and co-counsel in the lawsuit.
"I'm relieved that no other women will have to go through what I went through," said Lisbeth Ceriani, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the case, who was faced with having to pay over $4,000 for Myriad's testing. "I'm so glad that the Supreme Court agrees that women deserve full access to vital information from their own bodies."
The court did, however, rule that "synthetically produced genetic material" could be patented as opposed to genes extracted from the human body, known as isolated DNA.
_____________________
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 |
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a victory for "patient care and medical innovation," that will allow greater access to genetic testing and more affordable treatment for cancer patients, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.
The court decision invalidated patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of women's health groups and thousands of researchers, health professionals and patients.
The case concerned patents on human genes held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah based corporation, on human genes that are tied to the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer--an issue that received public attention in May when actress Angelina Jolie revealed she had a preventive double mastectomy. The news spawned debate over the procedure that is out of reach for most patients because of the extremely high costs related to Myriad's monopoly over the genes.
Myriad's patents had allowed them to set the terms and cost of testing the genes and "made it difficult for women to access alternate tests or get a comprehensive second opinion about their results," the ACLU explains.
ACLU continues:
The patents allowed a Utah company, Myriad Genetics, to control access to the genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, thereby giving them the right to limit others from doing research or diagnostic testing of the genes, which can be crucial for individuals making important medical decisions.
"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."
The decision is a major shift in patent law pertaining to human biology and declares that all the patents on human genes are invalid.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the court's decision, stated:
"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."
"The court rightfully found that patents cannot be awarded for something so fundamental to nature as DNA," said Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of PUBPAT and co-counsel in the lawsuit.
"I'm relieved that no other women will have to go through what I went through," said Lisbeth Ceriani, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the case, who was faced with having to pay over $4,000 for Myriad's testing. "I'm so glad that the Supreme Court agrees that women deserve full access to vital information from their own bodies."
The court did, however, rule that "synthetically produced genetic material" could be patented as opposed to genes extracted from the human body, known as isolated DNA.
_____________________
Jacob Chamberlain is a former staff writer for Common Dreams. He is the author of Migrant Justice in the Age of Removal. His website is www.jacobpchamberlain.com.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that human genes cannot be patented, a victory for "patient care and medical innovation," that will allow greater access to genetic testing and more affordable treatment for cancer patients, the American Civil Liberties Union said today.
The court decision invalidated patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of women's health groups and thousands of researchers, health professionals and patients.
The case concerned patents on human genes held by Myriad Genetics, a Utah based corporation, on human genes that are tied to the risk of hereditary breast and ovarian cancer--an issue that received public attention in May when actress Angelina Jolie revealed she had a preventive double mastectomy. The news spawned debate over the procedure that is out of reach for most patients because of the extremely high costs related to Myriad's monopoly over the genes.
Myriad's patents had allowed them to set the terms and cost of testing the genes and "made it difficult for women to access alternate tests or get a comprehensive second opinion about their results," the ACLU explains.
ACLU continues:
The patents allowed a Utah company, Myriad Genetics, to control access to the genes, known as BRCA1 and BRCA2, thereby giving them the right to limit others from doing research or diagnostic testing of the genes, which can be crucial for individuals making important medical decisions.
"Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation," said Sandra Park, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project. "Myriad did not invent the BRCA genes and should not control them. Because of this ruling, patients will have greater access to genetic testing and scientists can engage in research on these genes without fear of being sued."
The decision is a major shift in patent law pertaining to human biology and declares that all the patents on human genes are invalid.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who wrote the court's decision, stated:
"We hold that a naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."
"The court rightfully found that patents cannot be awarded for something so fundamental to nature as DNA," said Daniel B. Ravicher, executive director of PUBPAT and co-counsel in the lawsuit.
"I'm relieved that no other women will have to go through what I went through," said Lisbeth Ceriani, a breast cancer survivor and plaintiff in the case, who was faced with having to pay over $4,000 for Myriad's testing. "I'm so glad that the Supreme Court agrees that women deserve full access to vital information from their own bodies."
The court did, however, rule that "synthetically produced genetic material" could be patented as opposed to genes extracted from the human body, known as isolated DNA.
_____________________