[quoted material] "The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously invalidated patents on two genes associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) on behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, patients, breast cancer and women's health groups, and medical professional associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals.
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. The patents also allowed Myriad to set the terms and cost of testing and made it difficult for women to access alternate tests or get a comprehensive second opinion about their results." [link to quote in SWH]
I'm incredibly relieved that the Court ruled this way . . . what are your thoughts?
http://www.aclu.org/womens-rights/supreme-court-invalidat...
FT & CoMoMom - your points are well taken though I disagree with you.
I generally support patents and protections of intellectual property. My problem with this particular issue is that Myriad claimed to own THE GENES THEMSELVES, not just the test or the process of examining the genes.
If I discover the moon do I own it?
If I discover a new plant or some exotic species of animal heretofore never seen, do I own it?
Even if I did, is it proper public policy to have private companies own HUMAN GENES? Though I normally support drug research protection, genes are different. Genes are something which exist apart from any creation of thought, effort, invention, etc. Even drug patents last only 7 years (?) - Myriad's gene patent would last 20!
Here is an interesting link to the FAQ section from the ACLU: http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs#03 . If you are interested in this issue PLEASE read this section.
Regarding the issues of cost and innovation (will there be incentives to keep doing research?), the FAQ from the ACLU states:
"What about the argument that patents are a necessary incentive for research?
People who support gene patents often argue that genetic investigation is like drug development and will not take place without the incentive of the patent system. But studies sponsored by the federal government have established that gene patents, unlike other patents, are not required to incentivize research.[15] The Human Genome Project sequenced the entire human genetic sequence and did not patent any of the genes it identified. More than five million dollars of federal tax money funded the pursuit of the BRCA1 gene specifically.[16] Overall, much of the world of science has progressed without any expectation of patents: Einstein's equation, E=MC2, and his theory of general relativity were developed without any patent incentives."
Another perspective from the Wall St. Journal: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/06/13/ge...
No, I hadn't heard... But it sounds like it went the way it should. You can't own a patent in genes for crying out loud! Glad Myriad didn't get what they wanted!
I'm pretty happy with the opinion. They didn't invent the dang gene, did they? They shouldn't be able to patent it.
ETA: I don't think owning (and patenting) a test to check for a certain gene is the same as patenting a gene. Research teams develop new tests, diagnostic tools, and cures all the time without the need to patent the underlying disease. But, I will consider the comments of the dissenters and see if my opinion changes.
ETA2: Read more about it, and I still wholeheartedly agree with the USSC (and it was a unanimous decision). They will allow patents on modified/designed genes, but not the regular, standard ones that weren't "invented." Seems like a no-brainer. And most of the analysis indicates this won't deter research. And, finally, this is in no way, no how similar to vaccine research. At all. The court did not "rob" the company. The company was trying to do something (patent a part of the physical world that they did not develop or invent) that was deemed not legal.
ADDED: Arguments that medical science will become unprofitable and therefore advances in the field will slow or stop have only slight validity, and only in our market-driven economy. However, this same economy has been pricing out those of us who do have not had access to affordable health insurance. And good research is still happening in laboratories all around the world where profit is not the primary motive.
Many modern drugs, tests and procedures have been financially out of my reach for 20 years. As a result, I'm now in constant pain and nearly crippled from a rheumatic condition that would have required my hospitalization several years ago, and has also affected my eyesight, and could cause me to go blind. (Which would have qualified me for disability benefits at taxpayer's expense.)
I'm finally on Medicare, but for over 20 years, my $6000-deductible private policy was so expensive and so restrictive that I had to choose between being responsibly insured OR get at least some medical care, all out-of-pocket either way. And now that I have Medicare (buying all the extended plans STILL costs only about half what I was previously paying), I have the coverage, but two specialists have told me there's probably no way to get back most of my quality of life.
My daughter works in medical sales, pushing some of the newest and best advances in medicine. I'm happy for her success and glad these advances are available for some people, but as it stands now, only a small percentage of patients, with excellent insurance, can actually take advantage of them. The sales process alone guarantees huge mark-ups for the companies she's worked for, as well as endless travel, pricey lunches, schmoozing… just to get doctors to listen to her. Medicare will not pay for the more-expensive tests, devices and follow-through. Health for profit is just not a good deal except for an ever-shrinking demographic of people with generous insurance and/or wealth.
ADDED AGAIN: A later poster claims a woman patented a wild berry plant she found. According to law, that cannot happen: http://www.lventre.com/detailsplant.html
ORIGINAL POST: I'm also incredibly relieved!
You can't patent something you didn't make.
They isolated it.
It will increase competition and lower the cost of screenings for cancer risk and other genetic tests.
Patient advocates are supporting this, of course.
The fact that it went this far is an illustration of corporate greed.
my sister is a patent attorney and before she went back to law school she worked at both the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland clinic doing research.
We had a very interesting conversation one day about how much vaccines cost.... specifically we were talking about the HIV cocktail and why it's so expensive (one of our group was under the impression this drug treatment should be free, because it can save someone's life) but it's really irrelevant because it's all the same process.
Anyway, she worked in a lab. There were like 50 researchers, 3 higher level "bosses", 5 lawyers and the facility they worked in. They were ONE facility of an international research project.
Just to pay people and get the materials to do the research...... the cost was astronomical. Electricity, test tubes, microscopes etc. Payroll, benefits etc.
Who pays for that? They essentially get paid when they have a breakthrough and they are guaranteed the money from the pharmaceutical company who 'sponsored' the research. Clinical researchers don't get paid a lot. They certainly aren't rich...... ALL the money goes right back to fund additional research.
What will happen now... is that ANYONE can do research on this gene. So there will be more people competing for the same amount of money.... which will mean less research can actually get done.... because each individual site has to split the whole pie of money.
Typically, there is like a 10 year window before anyone has access. that timeframe is determined by how much money they have to make to "pay" for the research it costs to come up with the cure/vaccine/idea... whatever.
This is research on a gene, by the way, that LESS THAN 1% of females (who only make up 51% of the population) even have. It's not a cure for breast cancer. It's ONE of the possibilities of why and how SOME of the women get breast cancer.
So, I'm NOT relieved. What they've just done is allow capitalism into healthcare research. And while that may further our "freedoms", it certainly won't actually further a cure for breast cancer.
--------------
ETA - oh, and, before anyone starts talking about the evils of "Big Pharma". The pharmaceutical companies get rich off of "sexy" drugs, that aren't really needed but we as a neurotic society are willing to pay for the luxury of having...... viagra etc. NOT off actual research or cures for actual diseases.
Thinking about what Flaming Turnip said (which is very good info to point out), I'm wondering what the difference in Myriad's patents and other genetics' labs patents are. I have to think that there was something MORE to these patents than other similar ones for the courts to rule against them. Perhaps Myriad gambled by having much tighter patent rules than what is historically allowed by the courts. If so, they lost their gamble.
I'm sure that they will contest the court's findings and appeal.
The Supreme Court got it right this time.
Re 8kidsdad's response below: It's one thing to have rights to patent a drug that you have developed, for example, and completely another to patent a gene, imo. I guess ultimately I don't know enough about the research process but it seems to me that corporations shouldn't be allowed to patent genes. Drugs developed based on those genes, okay, but the genes themselves - no.
p.s. NPR was just talking about this, and they said that there would be winners and losers, but concluded with, "consumers will come out on the winning side," with cheaper, more diverse options.
Scientific research is a collaborative enterprise. VERY simplified version: Scientists do research; peers review the research and conduct additional studies to see whether the findings can be replicated (or not). A body of knowledge emerges. More studies are conducted. Ideas are refined. Practical applications and treatments for actual patients are derived. The process continues.
Patenting a drug that a company "discovers" is vastly different than trying to patent a gene. This is a classic apples vs. oranges issue.
In effect, trying to limit other scientists' access and ability to study the genes related to breast and ovarian cancer (or any genes, for that matter) ultimately limits the potential for scientific advances in those areas.
More simply expressed: do you want one corporately funded group to be the only ones allowed to conduct this research that has implications for your mothers, daughters, sisters, etc.?
Or, should the ability to study these genes be open to all scientists (whether employed in clinical, corporate, or university settings) engaged in those areas of study?
I think the Supreme Court made it pretty clear.
J. F.
Thank God Jonas Salk didn't patent the polio vaccine. Right?
ETA: Talkstotrees ... yeah, I know he didn't. That was my point :) If he had, it may not have been basically eradicated worldwide.
No i have not heard of this.Wow!
Patents are there to make it profitable to do research or discover new things. Ford had several hundred patents on various components of the car, but that didn't stop the auto industry from progressing. Bell (telephone) had lots of patents on the telephone, but that didn't stop his competitors from developing a better phone.
And the list goes on. What happened here was a company's intellectual rights were violated. This is another case of the court legislating from the bench.
The constitution gives us freedom of religion. The court took that freedom away and gave us freedom FROM religion instead.
By the court robbing the patent rights from this company, they deprived the company the right to make money from their labor (mental and physical). Its almost like the IRS deciding to add a surcharge to your tax rate or to audit you because they don't like your politics . . . oh, I guess the are already doing that. But is it fair. Or is it only fair because you or the supreme court don't like the politics of the company that had the patents.
A lady took the trolly up to the top of mountain next to Palm Spring, CA. While walking around up there she stumbled upon a raspberry patch. The raspberries were much better than any she had seen or heard of. So she brought a plant down the mountain and applied for a plant patent and was awarded the patent.
Stark Brothers Nursery plants hundreds of Red Delicious apple trees. Of the thousands and thousands of branches, one branch had yellow apples instead of red. Stark patented the yellow apple and called it a Yellow Delicious apple.
Something to think about. Good luck to you and yours,
Leelee, Jonas Salk didn't patent the polio vaccine.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/08/09/how-much-mon...
:)
The company says they had a process to seperate the gene and then generate new copies of that gene in the lab. That the 'owning' of the gene applies to the copies, not the donor.
I am not sure how I feel about the ruling. The truth remains that they will still have the most current and available version of the test for many years.
