supreme court rules genes may not be patented

[r00t]

thats 1 way to play it down i guess

[Hasbinbad]

B. Rabbit tactics dawg.

[Korisek]

Mountain Dew: Code Red is fucking delicious.

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Nikon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

'Natural' genes cannot be patented but synthetics can. That opens a door for industry to take a gene, duplicate it, modify it slightly, and patent it. I wonder, if you use a patented synthetic gene to make your kid taller, would you have to pay the patent owner when they decide to procreate and pass on that gene, or possibly tell you that you can't procreate because you haven't bought a license to 'distribute' the gene? Oh, the possibilities for making money...

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

the science is pretty cool, but it seems like it's motivated by that desire for the overman. why else would we isolate genes to "fix" certain things in people or enable them to modify their possible children with a set potentiality?

[Nikon]

Originally Posted by Ahldagor [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

don't think that would constitute as synthetic. they're going to have to develop in a lab the gene itself by forming it totally in a lab. if they're modifying someone's gene/s then they can't patent it because it was natural at the start and thus so from thenceforth.

This will be the next part of the debate for more specific guidelines. Taking a gene, splicing out components, and inserting new components that do not occur naturally will constitute a synthetic gene (a synthetic allele of the natural gene). I have a close colleague that works in the gene therapy research field here in Colorado and this was his explanation. Technically, even though it is naturally occurring to start, once modified, it is an entirely new product and not a naturally occurring gene or allele, which then is patentable. While the laws of nature dictate how the nucleotide sequence works and reacts just like other genes, the newly created gene is not naturally occurring. This ruling sets the precedent that the genes (sequences) humans are born with cannot be patented, but lab-modified (custom) versions of the nucleotide sequences can be. The idea of patents in the US is to be able to protect something you 'create'. A modified gene, while resembling a naturally occurring gene with even slight variations, is in essence a new gene if it is not found in the human body. This is where it will get tricky when lab genes are passed onto offspring and somebody else owns the rights to that gene.

My understanding is that Myriad filed a patent claim for isolating a specific gene and recreating it in the lab then claiming it as their own. It was in essence the isolated gene itself that they were patenting as the gene does not occur naturally by itself, but rather as part of a whole. I'm not a biology expert and lean more towards lab chemistry and physics, but what was explained to me falls into line with my knowledge of American patent history and my bio-chem education.

[Hasbinbad]

patent law is the root problem here.

[r00t]

whatsup?

[Nikon]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

patent law is the root problem here.

I agree. While it motives corporate research and profits, it kills private research for fear of infringement and the costly process that follows.

[Nikon]

Motivates*

[Ahldagor]

Originally Posted by Nikon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This will be the next part of the debate for more specific guidelines. Taking a gene, splicing out components, and inserting new components that do not occur naturally will constitute a synthetic gene (a synthetic allele of the natural gene). I have a close colleague that works in the gene therapy research field here in Colorado and this was his explanation. Technically, even though it is naturally occurring to start, once modified, it is an entirely new product and not a naturally occurring gene or allele, which then is patentable. While the laws of nature dictate how the nucleotide sequence works and reacts just like other genes, the newly created gene is not naturally occurring. This ruling sets the precedent that the genes (sequences) humans are born with cannot be patented, but lab-modified (custom) versions of the nucleotide sequences can be. The idea of patents in the US is to be able to protect something you 'create'. A modified gene, while resembling a naturally occurring gene with even slight variations, is in essence a new gene if it is not found in the human body. This is where it will get tricky when lab genes are passed onto offspring and somebody else owns the rights to that gene.

My understanding is that Myriad filed a patent claim for isolating a specific gene and recreating it in the lab then claiming it as their own. It was in essence the isolated gene itself that they were patenting as the gene does not occur naturally by itself, but rather as part of a whole. I'm not a biology expert and lean more towards lab chemistry and physics, but what was explained to me falls into line with my knowledge of American patent history and my bio-chem education.

so the argument is: it's different because we've synthesized one allele that would occur naturally from human action it can be patented because it (the allele) was synthesized from human action.

my gist of it anyway, and i could be wrong. looking at the set up and not specific points, but on a brighter note i think we're a few years away from fully privatizing the powers of a creator god...go humans?!?!