|
12 May 09 - 11:26 PM (#2630494) Subject: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Janie http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/12/us.genes.lawsuit/index.html I would be interested in informed opinions regarding this issue. |
|
12 May 09 - 11:37 PM (#2630495) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Stilly River Sage Well, as one who lost a mother to breast cancer and who herself lost her ovaries and the works the endometrial cancer, the idea that someone could corner the market on research seems reprehensible. It isn't like they created the gene. Know what I mean? SRS |
|
13 May 09 - 12:05 AM (#2630502) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: katlaughing Myriad's patents give it exclusive right to perform diagnostic tests on the genes -- forcing other researchers to request permission from the company before they can take a look at BRCA1 and BRCA2, the ACLU said. The patents also give the company the rights to future mutations on the BRCA2 gene and the power to exclude others from providing genetic testing. Seems as though it is purely a monetary thing as they charge $3,000 for the test, according to that article. I am not well-informed, but I don't see how it is right they should be given a patent on something such as genes. I will ask my niece, the micro-biologist who had her own "designer" mice for testing (I know, I hate that!) which were exclusive. Not sure if there was a patent or not, but she's moved on to other work now. I'll be interested in what she may have to say about this. Might take a day or two. |
|
13 May 09 - 12:54 AM (#2630511) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: catspaw49 I would think the fellow (Caplan) at the end of the article is correct. You can't patent something that already exists because its there. "A better argument would be that they were wrong when they granted the patent," he added referring to the patent office. Caplan said patents are privileges, not "carved in stone." He noted that the defendants may have identified the genes, but didn't actually work on them. So, the government could reverse the patents on the genes. "It's like trying to patent the moon," he said. "You didn't do anything to create it, just discovered something that already existed. You can't patent things that are publicly available, that anyone can find. You have to create something, make something, do something with the thing." Spaw |
|
13 May 09 - 02:16 AM (#2630539) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Peace I thought that Levi would already have the patent. |
|
13 May 09 - 02:24 AM (#2630542) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Peace I don't know exactly WHO is getting sued over this, but I would not doubt for a second that a drug company is behind it. They are the greediest bastards on the planet, and I look forward to the day their corporate offices are--well, I look forward to the day they are held accountable for the heartbreak their damned greed has caused. Hell, I feel like saying 'viva la Revolucion' or 'Lock and load.' I am sorry, Janie, but this kind of thread gets me really upset, so I'll try to post when I don't want to rip some CEO's head off and shit down his throat. |
|
13 May 09 - 07:45 AM (#2630697) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Jeri From the article: The ACLU, joined by Yeshiva University's law school, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in southern New York against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Utah-based Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation.and: The ACLU contends that patenting the genes limits research and the free flow of information, and as a result violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges genetic patenting in general, noting that about 20 percent of all human genes are patented -- including genes associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy and asthma.The patents give the company the exclusive right to test for the genes, at $3,000 a pop. I hope ACLU wins this. Patenting things you find is wrong, and I think when it comes to public health, maybe some sort of cap should be placed on profit. I understand the companies have to pay for development and R & D needs to be encouraged, but giving one company sole, permanent rights (unlike what happens with drugs, whose patents I believe have an expiration date) to a gene that occurs naturally and any test for that gene is criminal. |
|
13 May 09 - 08:33 AM (#2630742) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: artbrooks Agreed, Jeri. To me, it would seem perfectly reasonable to patent the test, but not the body part being tested. Although it is on a much smaller scale, it isn't really different from a company patenting blood so they can make money off of a blood test. I can't imagine what the US Patent Office was thinking when they let this through in the first place, but it was probably some junior clerk who was only concerned with all the blocks being filled out on the application form. |
|
13 May 09 - 10:46 AM (#2630867) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Ebbie Absurd. I hope they lose decisively. They could hope for the Nobel Prize but surely not a patent. |
|
13 May 09 - 11:16 AM (#2630895) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Desert Dancer In this case, patenting the test is not an option -- gene sequencing is the same, no matter what the gene. (There are some patents, involved, but not an issue here.) The only way to patent anything in the process is to "own" the known sequence which you're trying to match (or not). I agree that being able to patent something naturally occurring is crazy. Especially if it limits further research and affects people's health. If you've created something -- induced a mutation, for example, that's different. ~ Becky in Tucson |
|
13 May 09 - 11:25 AM (#2630904) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: Desert Dancer Here's the New York Times article. There is a lot involved in the process of bringing a particular gene sequence to light, of course. The work that goes into connecting a particular sequence to a particular defect is not trivial. I suppose there can be some argument for providing incentives for commercial enterprises to pursue that, as well as the non-profits and universities, but it seems wrong to limit access to the test. ~ B in T |
|
13 May 09 - 11:50 AM (#2630919) Subject: RE: BS: ACLU sues over patenting genes From: John on the Sunset Coast I'll bet that the persons from whom the original genes are obtained will not participate in the rewards of these patents. |