Friday, April 12, 2013

Gene patenting in U.S. Supreme Court


The United States Supreme Court is hearing a challenge that could strike down patents on genes, including those involved in genetically-modified crops and livestock testing.

The case is centred on gene patents for breast and ovarian cancers held by Myriad Genetics inc.

It challenges the right of the U.S. Patent Office to grant patents for the discovery of genes, a practice that began in 1982 and is crucial to businesses such as Monsanto and its Roundup-ready genes and companies that market their gene-detection expertise to artificial insemination units and purebred livestock breeders.

Companies involved in patenting genes they have researched argue that the intellectual property rights are crucial to make money to pursue research.

Medical doctors and members of the public argue that no company ought to be able to profit from a person’s body parts.

The group opposing Myriad says the company has used the patents to block other laboratories from testing the genes for mutations, in some cases depriving women of important information. 

The opponents also say the patents are so broad that they deter use of the genes for research.

Gene patenting “impedes your relationship to your physician,” said Daniel Ravicher, president of the New York- based Public Patent Foundation, which along with the American Civil Liberties Union represents the challengers.

“It gives exclusive monopolistic control over a portion of your body to a corporation whose legally required interest is to maximize profits for its shareholders,” he says.

On the other side, those favouring continued gene patenting say it has led to valuable treatments, including Amgen Inc. (AMGN)’s Epogen anemia drug and synthetic insulin developed by Genentech Inc., now part of Roche Holding AG.

A decision against gene patenting would impact biotechnology, agriculture, industrial microbiology and pharmaceuticals, says a professor at Duke Unviersity.

The case has implications for the growing field of personalized medicine and efforts to map the human brain and discover new uses for embryonic stem cells.

It potentially could bar patents on discoveries outside the DNA context.

“The intellectual framework that comes out of the decision could have an impact on other patents,” said Robert Cook- Deegan, a public-policy professor at Duke University and its Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy.

Beyond medicine, “this could affect agricultural biotechnology, environmental biotechnology, green-tech, the use of organisms to produce alternative fuels and other applications,” he says.