Supreme Court Rules Human Genes Cannot Be Patented. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, announced on Thursday, that human genes may not be patented generated heavy media coverage Thursday night and this morning, with nearly nine minutes devoted to the ruling on broadcast network newscasts, and prominent coverage in major newspapers. The ruling was seen as a powerful statement by the court on an important intellectual property issue that could have a lasting effect on the biotech industry. The CBS Evening News (6/13, story 5, 2:20, Pelley) reported, “The justices ruled unanimously that biotech companies may not patent human genes,” but “they said genes made in a lab may be patented.” The court “ruled human genes are products of nature and cannot be patented or controlled by the scientists who discover them. The ruling was a narrow victory for doctors and scientists who were challenging claims by Utah-based Myriad Genetics, which had made a medical breakthrough” by identifying and obtaining patents on two genes, BRCA-1 and BRCA-2, “that can show a woman is at a higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer.” NBC Nightly News (6/13, story 5, 2:00, Holt) reported, “The court’s decision involves the medical tests that actress Angelina Jolie took before deciding undergo a double mastectomy last month.” ABC World News (6/13, story 4, 1:45, Muir) reported, “Now doctors and researchers say the cost of getting tested for that gene will likely come down, from about $3,000 today, since other companies will be able to compete with Myriad. And most important, the ruling applies to all of our genes, which means scientists will be able to explore all of them without the fear of corporate control.” The Washington Post (6/13, A1, Barnes, Dennis) reports that Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the unanimous court, said that “merely isolating those specific genes” was “not worthy of a patent. ‘Myriad found the location of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, but that discovery, by itself, does not render the BRCA genes...patent eligible,’ Thomas wrote. On the other hand, Thomas wrote, Myriad’s creation of a synthetic form of DNA – called cDNA – based on its discovery does deserve patent protection. ‘The lab technician unquestionably creates something new when cDNA is made,’ Thomas wrote.” The New York Times (6/14, A1, Liptak, Subscription Publication) reports that the cost of the Myriad test, which often reached more than $3,000, was “partly a product” of the firm’s patent. The ruling “will also shape the course of scientific research and medical testing in other fields, and it may alter the willingness of businesses to invest in the expensive work of isolating and understanding genetic material.” The Times notes that the ruling “hewed closely to the position” of the Obama Administration, which had argued that isolated DNA may not be patented, but that “complementary” DNA, or cDNA, an artificial construct, was eligible for a patent. The CBS Evening News (6/13, story 6, 1:35, Pelley) reported, “In research labs, they celebrated the court’s decision.” Christopher Mason, a geneticist at New York’s Cornell Medical College, “was an expert witness in the case,” who “says the patents restricted scientists’ ability to do important research.” CBS added, “By one estimate, more than 3,500 patents are held on naturally occurring gene sequences by pharmaceutical giants like Amgen, Genentech and GlaxoSmithKline. Bio, the biotechnology industry organization called the court’s ruling ‘a troubling departure that could create business uncertainty.’ But the American Medical Association called it ‘a clear victory for patients.’” The Wall Street Journal (6/14, Kendall, Bravin, Subscription Publication) reports that Myriad said in a statement that the ruling would allow it to keep 24 patents on cDNA. The Journal quotes Sandra Park of the American Civil Liberties Union, which had represented the groups challenging the patents, saying, “Today, the court struck down a major barrier to patient care and medical innovation. 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.” McClatchy (6/14, Doyle) reports that the ruling “means that competing firms now have a freer hand in developing cancer-testing tools that involve the genes for which Myriad held the patents. More broadly, Park said the ruling could call into question the validity of patents have been issued for about 4,000 other human genes.”
Posted on: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 05:47:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015