Patents on Cancer Genes Ruled Invalid

On Monday a federal judge struck down patents held on two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer. If the decision is upheld it could call into question the patents of thousands of other human genes, potentially reshaping the law of intellectual property and bioethics.

The genes at the center of the dispute have mutations that are associated with cancer. The American Civil Liberties Union alongside the Public Patent Foundation at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law filed suit, along with individual patients and medical organizations to challenge the patents. They argued that the genes, as products of nature, fell outside of those things that can be patented. The patents, they said, stifle research, innovation, and limit testing operations. While the law prohibits direct patenting of the DNA in human bodies, genetics companies had gotten around precedent by arguing that the work of isolating the DNA from the body transforms it, thereby making it patentable. Indeed, it is an argument persuasive enough to grant hundreds of similar patents and appeared to have the blessing of the Supreme Court which upheld patents on certain living organisms in 1980.

The effect of the decision, if it is upheld, cannot be understated. Currently about 20 percent of human genes are already patented, fueling a multi-billion dollar industry. No one is really sure of what the fallout would mean. Some argue it would be devastating to medical research, as the practice of medicine has become more personalized due in large part to the growing availability of genetic testing. Others see this as a potential boom for research institutions who so far have been hamstrung from research geared toward curing disease, rather than maintaining it, due in large part to the intellectual property restrictions on certain suspicious genomes.

Those who fought the patents were as much challenging the monopoly genetics companies created, not so much with the gene patent as the ability to create diagnostic tests for those specific genes. So in some respects this can be seen as a victory for making genetic testing even more available and affordable, a point repeated by the Plaintiffs in the case. That said, it is hard to deny the fact that genetic research is expensive, and upholding this decision could, in the short term, scare private dollars away from developmental research. Both sides seem to agree that the result will be to push more and more developmental research into public universities, which, given the nature of the subject, maybe where the work should have stayed all along.

photo courtesy of ynse via Flickr

Love This? Never Miss Another Story.

32 comments

Seth E.
Seth E.5 years ago

This proves the old saying that 'there is no honor among thieves.'

Medical research should benefit those in need of cures and treatments; this should not be about making ridiculous profits.

Many of the procedures for these conditions have been available elsewhere in the world for much less cost for some time now, but due to simple corporate greed, these companies in the US keep monopoly over medical procedures through illegal and unethical patents simply to ensure themselves a maximum possible profit.

This needs to go further than just striking down the patents; the perpetrators should be charged as criminals for robbing people of their money, their health, and in some cases, their lives.

Connor H.
Connor H.5 years ago

thanks!

Beverley A.
Beverley A.5 years ago

No-one shoudl be allowed to patent human genes - these belong to the whole human race, not big corporations or pharmaceutical companies.

Teresa Wlosowicz
Teresa W.5 years ago

Mhmm...

Teresa Wlosowicz
Teresa W.5 years ago

Mhmm...

Mervi R.
Mervi R.5 years ago

Thanks for the info!

Ellinor S.
Ellinor S.5 years ago

thank you

Raquel Barreto Arguello

PATENTING ? HOW ? WHEN ? WHERE ? WHAT RIGHT ? THIS IS REALLY UNBELIEVABLE ! ! !

Janice P.
Janice P.5 years ago

Daniel, are you kidding? Ethics in the pharmaceutical industry? The name of the game is profits. It always has been and it, unfortunately, always will be. The very idea of attempting to patent something that occurs naturally is outrageous. (That, incidentally, is the reason Big Pharma is so interested in decimating the health food/supplement industry. They are losing profits to those groups, who sell naturally occurring things at far lower prices than Big Pharma would.) And, now, wanting to patent DNA. They have no shame - only profits.

Kathy Javens
Kathy Javens5 years ago

i realize that research is a necessity for the medical community, but is patenting genes necessary? is there no other way to do this? it is a mystery to me.