Whose DNA anyway?
Yesterday, a US District Court judge issued a ruling which invalidated the patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The patent-holder, Myriad Genetics, sells genetic testing services that predict likelihoods of getting breast cancer: women with certain mutations in these genes have an 85% lifetime chance of getting breast cancer, unless they get prophylactic mastectomies, which can bring the risk down to 1%.
That genetic test could only be done by one company, because they were granted the patent on the BRCA1/2 genes. Well, no, technically you can't do that - but you could get a patent on "isolated DNA", once it's extracted from the body and purified, on the theory that at that point it's just a chemical like any other, and you can definitely patent a chemical. In the 156-page opinion (which I haven't read!), Judge Robert Sweet rejects that reasoning and invalidates the patents.
Needless to say, this will be appealed. But wow, if upheld, it's a game-changer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html
That genetic test could only be done by one company, because they were granted the patent on the BRCA1/2 genes. Well, no, technically you can't do that - but you could get a patent on "isolated DNA", once it's extracted from the body and purified, on the theory that at that point it's just a chemical like any other, and you can definitely patent a chemical. In the 156-page opinion (which I haven't read!), Judge Robert Sweet rejects that reasoning and invalidates the patents.
Needless to say, this will be appealed. But wow, if upheld, it's a game-changer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/business/30gene.html