Comments on: ACLU fights patent on DNA research http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/2009/11/16/aclu-fights-patent-on-dna-research/#utm_source=feed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=feed E59.1405, The Media, Culture, and Communications Department at the Steinhardt School of Education at NYU Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:50:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ninanyc http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/2009/11/16/aclu-fights-patent-on-dna-research/comment-page-1/#comment-109 ninanyc Tue, 17 Nov 2009 00:32:52 +0000 http://copyrightcommerceandculture.com/?p=574#comment-109 We talked about IP and human genetics in my Biology & Society class last semester and it's pretty scary. Apparently one fourth of human genes have been patented since the end of 2005. I looked back at my notes and from what I can remember, the U.S. only requires scientists to make "one true utility claim" (i.e. a broad idea of what they plan to do with a gene, such as test it to see what it binds with, etc.) in order to get the rights to all future uses of the gene. To claim a patent to a gene, you have to successfully isolate it, which is considered an act of artifice and not a product of nature. As far as owning patents on genes, there's a huge difference in private vs. public ownership. Say the NIH and government scientists patent a certain gene (which they can do because of the Bayh-Dole Act) - they would do so to make it available for research. Pharmaceutical companies patent genes to commercialize on it and charge exorbitant fees for research rights. I remember discussing how Myriad Genetics owns the gene patent for the genes that cause breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2). Glad to see that the ACLU is challenging their claims. We talked about IP and human genetics in my Biology & Society class last semester and it’s pretty scary. Apparently one fourth of human genes have been patented since the end of 2005. I looked back at my notes and from what I can remember, the U.S. only requires scientists to make “one true utility claim” (i.e. a broad idea of what they plan to do with a gene, such as test it to see what it binds with, etc.) in order to get the rights to all future uses of the gene. To claim a patent to a gene, you have to successfully isolate it, which is considered an act of artifice and not a product of nature.

As far as owning patents on genes, there’s a huge difference in private vs. public ownership. Say the NIH and government scientists patent a certain gene (which they can do because of the Bayh-Dole Act) – they would do so to make it available for research. Pharmaceutical companies patent genes to commercialize on it and charge exorbitant fees for research rights.

I remember discussing how Myriad Genetics owns the gene patent for the genes that cause breast cancer (BRCA1 and BRCA2). Glad to see that the ACLU is challenging their claims.

]]>